Court Declines Interdiction in Town Vending Committee Elections; Aggrieved Candidates to Seek Post-Election Remedies

The Petitioners, Mohd Arfin and Subodh Bind, challenged a decision by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to categorize them as "General Category" candidates for the Town Vending Committee (TVC) elections.

Petitioner No. 1 holds an OBC certificate from Uttar Pradesh, and Petitioner No. 2 holds an EBC certificate from Bihar.

They argued that the MCD election guidelines only require a declaration of membership in a reserved category and do not explicitly state that the OBC certificate must be issued by the State of Delhi.

Conversely, the MCD maintained that as a local body in Delhi, it requires certificates issued by Delhi authorities.

The TVC election process was already underway following specialized timelines monitored by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the MCD’s requirement for OBC certificates to be issued specifically by Delhi authorities for TVC elections is legally valid.

2. Whether the High Court should interdict or interfere with the ongoing election process of the Town Vending Committee.

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Election of the Members of Town Vending Committee from amongst the street vendors) Guidelines, 2026, specifically Guideline 13(2), which requires a declaration of caste status for reserved seats.

Principles of judicial non-interference in ongoing election processes, supported by the Supreme Court’s directions in Saptahik Merchant Welfare Association (Registered) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. (SLP(C) Nos. 26311-26312/2019), which mandated the expeditious reconstitution of TVCs.

The Court balanced the Petitioners' grievances regarding their category status against the public interest of completing the long-delayed TVC elections.

It noted that the election of TVCs is a crucial prerequisite for the issuance of vending certificates in Delhi and is being monitored by both the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that the election process had already reached an advanced stage with a published schedule.

Applying the principle of electoral finality and judicial restraint, the Court reasoned that interdicting the process at this stage would cause significant delay to a constitutionally and statutorily mandated process.

The Court granted the Petitioners liberty to avail themselves of legal remedies to challenge the categorization after the conclusion of the elections.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of without granting the immediate relief of category reclassification.