Allahabad High Court Suspends Administrative & Financial Powers Of Lucknow Mayor For Not Administering Oath To Elected Corporator

The dispute pertained to the non-administration of an oath to the petitioner by the Mayor of Lucknow for the last 5 months, despite the petitioner being declared a returned candidate as a Corporator of a ward in an election petition decided by the Additional District Judge, Lucknow.

The Division Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi and Justice Alok Mathur held, “Accordingly, considering the persistent non-compliance despite repeated indulgence shown by this Court, and with a view to ensure immediate implementation of the judicial order and preservation of constitutional governance, this Court finds it appropriate, at this stage, to direct that the administrative and financial powers attached to the office of the respondent-Mayor of Lucknow shall remain suspended/ceased, to the exception of administering oath to the Corporator, till compliance of the order dated 13/05/2026 is ensured. The said direction is not punitive in nature but is intended solely to secure obedience to the orders passed by this Court and to prevent further obstruction in discharge of statutory duties. 19. The respondent-Mayor, despite repeated opportunities.”

“The order of suspension of the administrative and financial powers of the respondent-Mayor of Lucknow as directed above, is therefore, not punitive in character, but a consequential Constitutional measure intended to secure compliance of judicial orders and prevent continued obstruction of statutory duties. The authority to exercise administrative and financial powers cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument for defeating orders passed by a constitutional court. In the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that unless coercive constitutional measures are adopted, the repeated disobedience of the respondent would render the orders of this Court a mockery and seriously undermine the rule of law itself”, it added.

Advocate Nadeem Murtaza represented the Petitioner, while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Despite the order having been passed by the Election Tribunal in December 2025, in favour of the petitioner declaring him to be the elected candidate, the petitioner was not administered the oath and consequently, was unable to participate in the proceedings of the Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the instant petition. During the pendency of the petition, numerous opportunities were given to the respondents and an explanation was sought as to why the oath was not administered to the petitioner.

Despite the order mandating that the Municipal Commissioner and its mayor should not violate Section 77 of the Act, 1959, the respondents did not proceed to administer oath to the petitioner and when the matter was taken up on May 11, 2026, the court in its order had considered the fact that the Mayor of Lucknow was duly intimated about the decision of the election Tribunal and the State government had also directed the District Magistrate to comply with the judgement of the Election Tribunal. On May 13, 2026, the Court directed the Mayor of Lucknow to administer the oath to the petitioner within seven days. It was further directed that in case an oath was not administered to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow and the Mayor of Lucknow would have to be personally present before the Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the Mayor of Lucknow, stating that she had suffered from heatstroke and was admitted to a hospital. In the affidavit of the Mayor, there was no mention with regard to the compliance with the order of the Court, nor any averment as to whether she intended to comply with the order.

The Bench found that after the expiry of substantially long length of time, the petitioner had not been administered oath thereby he had been unable to participate in the democratic process and the Mayor of Lucknow who had a statutory responsibility to administer oath to the petitioner had thoroughly failed to comply with either the statutory requirements of administering the oath and further failed to comply even the direction issued by the Court in the present writ petition. “We further find that there is no legal impediment in administering oath to the petitioner to enable him to function as a Corporator in the Municipal Corporation or any cogent reason nor reasonable explanation has been offered for not administering oath to the petitioner by the responden”, it added.

The Bench also noticed that no cogent explanation was forthcoming on behalf of the Mayor for not administering the oath to the petitioner despite clear statutory prescription in that regard, and also clear direction of the Court in its previous order. “This Court is of the considered view that constitutional courts are not powerless spectators where their orders are repeatedly ignored by statutory authorities. The power under Article 226 necessarily includes ancillary and consequential powers to ensure effective implementation of judicial directions. Mere issuance of orders without securing compliance would reduce the authority of the Court to a nullity”, the order read.

Considering that the respondent-Mayor, despite repeated opportunities granted by the Court, had continued to obstruct compliance with a ministerial and statutory obligation, the Bench stated, “Such persistent defiance cannot be permitted to defeat the authority of this Court or frustrate democratic governance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Gupta v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2013)11 SCC 404 observed that where repeated non-compliance of judicial orders is demonstrated, constitutional courts are empowered to adopt coercive and consequential measures to ensure obedience, for otherwise judicial directions would be reduced to mere paper declarations.”

The Bench thus ordered the suspension of administrative and financial powers of the Mayor except the power relating to the Corporator’s administration of oath. The matter has now been listed on May 21, 2026.

Cause Title: Lalit Tiwari Alias Lalit Kishore Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. (Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 2531 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Nadeem Murtaza, Alina Masoodi, Karuna Shankar Tiwari, Mandeep Kumar Mishra, Utkarsh Vardhan Singh, Utsav Mishra

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel, Advocates Anurag Kumar Singh, Shailendra Singh Chauhan

Click here to read/download Order