In a writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court concerning the non-administration of oath by the Mayor of Lucknow to the petitioner, a returned candidate as Corporator of Faizulgunj-III, Lucknow, a Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi suspended the administrative and financial powers of the Mayor of Lucknow for compliance with a previous order.
Despite an order by the Election Tribunal in the petitioner’s favour in December 2025, whereby he was declared as an elected candidate, the Mayor did not administer the oath, due to which the petitioner was unable to participate in the Municipal Corporation proceedings. This led to the present petition.
During the pendency of the present petition, the respondents were given numerous opportunities to explain. However, on 17-03-2026, the Court directed the counsel on behalf of the Municipal Corporation to seek instructions from the Mayor. The instructions stated that the returned candidate had filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s order and that administering an oath would create an incongruous situation if the High Court allowed the appeal.
On 25-03-2026, the Court had observed that the Mayor’s stand appeared to be in the teeth of the statutory provisions as well as the ‘defacto doctrine’. Despite the said order, the respondents did not proceed to administer the oath to the petitioner. On 11-05-2026, the Court considered that the Mayor was duly intimated about the decision of the Election Tribunal as well as the State Government, and directed the District Magistrate to do the needful to comply with the Tribunal’s judgment. The Court also directed the District Magistrate, Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow, and the Mayor of Lucknow to be personally present if the oath was not administered.
On 13-05-2026, the Court had directed the Mayor of Lucknow to administer the oath to the petitioner within seven days, and an affidavit of compliance was to be filed. However, the Court noted that an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed by the Mayor, stating that she was suffering from heatstroke and was admitted to a hospital.
The Court noted that the Mayor’s affidavit had no mention regarding the compliance with the Court’s order, and that no averment was made as to whether she intended to comply with the same.
The Court found that the petitioner had not been administered the oath even after the expiry of a substantially long time, which made him unable to participate in the democratic process and that the Mayor, having a statutory responsibility, had neither complied with the statutory requirement nor complied with the directions by this Court. It was found that there was no legal impediment in administering oath to the petitioner to enable him to function as a Corporator in the Municipal Corporation.
The Court asked the Municipal Corporation as to within what time period the oath would be administered, but received no answer to the same, which indicated that the respondents had decided not to administer the oath to the petitioner, despite the Court’s directions. The Court was also informed that the order by which the Court had directed the Mayor’s personal appearance was challenged before the Supreme Court, which was later withdrawn.
The Court opined that constitutional courts are not powerless spectators where their orders are repeatedly ignored by statutory authorities, and considering the persistent non-compliance, the Court found it appropriate to direct the suspension of the administrative and financial powers attached to the office of the Mayor of Lucknow, except the power to administer oath to the Corporator till compliance with the order dated 13-05-2026 was ensured. It was clarified that the said direction was not punitive but solely intended to secure obedience. The Court stated that the Mayor’s persistent defiance could not be permitted to defeat the Court’s authority or frustrate democratic governance. The Court stated in the present case that, unless coercive constitutional measures are adopted, the respondent’s repeated disobedience would render the Court’s order a mockery and undermine the rule of law.
The Court stated that the Municipal Corporation’s functioning was not to be stalled and that it was to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, treating the Mayor’s absence as a casual absence. The respondents were directed to file the affidavit of compliance by the next date, and the District Magistrate’s personal appearance was exempted.
The Court directed that if the present order is not complied with, the Mayor of Lucknow would have to appear again and file a personal affidavit to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for the deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court’s order.
The matter has now been listed on 29-05-2026.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Nadeem Murtaza, Alina Masoodi, Karuna Shankar Tiwari, Mandeep Kumar Mishra, Utkarsh Vardhan Singh, Utsav Mishra
For Respondents – C.S.C, Anurag Kumar Singh, Shailendra Singh Chauhan
