A comprehensive & objective rating of the Elected Representatives’ performance
DELHI
MLA RATINGS 2019 he´pee SkeÀ Dehe#eheeleer mebmLeeve nw pees 1999 mes GÊejoe³eer Meemeve keÀes me#ece yeveeves keÀer efoMee ceW keÀece keÀj jner nw~ he´pee veeieefjkeÀeW keÀes peevekeÀejer Deewj heefjhe´s#³e he´oeve keÀj Meemeve‑efJeefOe ceW Yeeie uesves kesÀ efueS MeefÊeÀ he´oeve keÀjleer nw leeefkeÀ Jes cele-hesìer lekeÀ ner meerefcele ve jns Deewj jepeveereflekeÀ ªhe mes meef¬eÀ³e Deewj meeqcceefuele nes mekeWÀ~ ³en J³eehekeÀ MeesOekeÀe³e& keÀjleer nw Deewj veeieefjkeÀeW keÀer mecem³eeDeeW keÀes Gpeeiej keÀjleer nw leeefkeÀ Jes GmekesÀ he´efle peeieªkeÀ nes mekeWÀ, Deewj mejkeÀejer Deewj efveJee&ef®ele he´efleefveefOe³eeW kesÀ keÀece keÀes ueeceyebo keÀj mekeWÀ~
mecem³ee he´pee keÀer he´efleef¬eÀ³ee he´pee keÀe ceevevee nw efkeÀ De®íer Meemeve-efJeefOe keÀer he´pee DeeBkeÀæ[eW hej DeeOeeefjle MeesOekeÀe³e& keÀjleer nw keÀceer kesÀ efueS DeveefYe%e Deewj Deueie-Leueie heæ[s Deewj veeieefjkeÀeW, ceeref[³ee, Deewj mejkeÀejer he´Meemeve efveJee&ef®ele he´efleefveefOe Deewj he´Meemeve ef]peccesoej keÀes peve mecem³eeDeeW mes mecyebefOele peevekeÀejer he´oeve nQ, ve efkeÀ ceewpetoe mece³e kesÀ leb$e ³ee veerefle³eeB~ keÀjleer nw Deewj ®egves ieS he´efleefveefOe³eeW kesÀ meeLe FmekesÀ DeefleefjÊeÀ, veeieefjkeÀeW Deewj mLeeveer³e efceuekeÀj GvekeÀer keÀe³e&-he´Ceeefue³eeW ceW DekegÀMeuelee mejkeÀej kesÀ yeer®e he´YeeJeMeeueer Jeeo-J³eJnej keÀer hen®eeve keÀjves Deewj Gme keÀes otj keÀjves, met®evee keÀes megefJeOeepevekeÀ yeveeves kesÀ GhekeÀjCeeW keÀe Yeer kesÀ Deblej keÀes heeìves, Deewj GvnW megOeej nsleg Ghee³e DeYeeJe nw~ keÀjves ceW ceoo keÀjves kesÀ efueS keÀece keÀjleer nw~
FmekeÀe efJekeÀeme kewÀmes ngDee? 1999 2003 2005 2008-2012 2014 2017 he´pee ves ye=nve cegcyeF& veiej yeerScemeer kesÀ meeLe efceuekeÀj cegcyeF& kesÀ Meemeve keÀes he´pee mebJeeo keÀer Meg©Deele ®egves ieS he´efleefveefOe³eeW keÀes Menj keÀer MeemekeÀer³e efveiece (yeerScemeer) kesÀ veeieefjkeÀeW keÀe efMekeÀe³ele Gpeeiej Deewj mheä keÀjves keÀer; efmeìermkewÀve keÀe veerefle³eeW Deewj YetefcekeÀeDeeW mebj®eveeDeeW keÀes megOeejves meeLe efceuekeÀj, cegcyeF& keÀe efveoeve leb$e, Dee@veueeFve kesÀ efueS cegcyeF& efmeìerpevme DeejcYe, cegcyeF& kesÀ keÀe %eeve osves kesÀ efueS kesÀ efueS `Menjer Meemeve henuee veeieefjkeÀ DeefOekeÀej kebÀhueWì De@C[ cewvespeceWì nQ[yegkeÀ he´keÀeefMele keÀer; veeieefjkeÀ SJeb megj#ee kesÀ keÀe³e&Meeuee³eW Dee³eesefpele HeefjJele&ve' veecekeÀ veF& he$e yevee³ee efmemìce (DeesmeerSceSme) ueieYeie 2 ueeKe he´efle³eeB cegÎeW hej J³eehekeÀ DeeBkeÀæ[eW keÀer; cegcyeF& ceW efJekeÀefmele cee@ Heefj³eespevee keÀe He´ejbYe lew³eej efkeÀ³ee, Deewj Deeieeceer efJeleefjle ngF& keÀer Dee@veueeFve leguevee [ue keÀes oesnjeves kesÀ efueS Je DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD Praja is a non-partisan organisation working towards enabling accountable governance since 1999. Praja empowers citizens to participate in governance by providing knowledge and perspective so that they can become politically active and involved beyond the ballot box. It undertakes extensive research and highlights civic issues to build the awareness of, and mobilize action by the government and elected representatives. THE PROBLEM PRAJA's RESPONSE Praja believes that uninformed and Praja conducts data driven disengaged elected representatives research and provides information and administration, rather than on civic issues to citizens, media, existing systems or policies, are and government administration and responsible for the lack of good works with elected representatives governance. Additionally, there is a to identify and address inefficiencies paucity of tools to facilitate effective in their work processes, bridge the interaction between citizens and information gaps, and aid them in the local government. taking corrective measures. HOW DID IT EVOLVE? 1999 2003 2005 2008-2012 2014 2017 Praja, along Teamed up with Published Initiated Praja Conducted Started a with the Brihan BMC and built its Mumbai Citizen's Dialogue; workshops new project Mumbai Municipal citizen's grievance Handbook launched with elected 'Transforming Corporation redressal to demystify CityScan, an representatives, Urban Governance' (BMC), created mechanism, The governance in online collation of educating them to reform city Mumbai's first Online Complaint Mumbai; About extensive data on on policies and governance Citizen Charter and Management 2 lakh copies civic and security roles; started the structures. System (OCMS), distributed Issues In Mumbai; Delhi Chapter and conducted Published to replicate the complaint audits in Councilor model developed the ensuing years handbook; and In Mumbai annual report cards on MLAs, and Councilors DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 1 efJe DeO³ee³e he=ÿ mebK³ee Chapter Pg. No. ìerce 4 The Team 5 efjheesì& keÀe[& keÀer DeeJeM³ekeÀlee ke̳eeW heæ[er Deewj FmeceW ke̳ee efveefnle nw? 6 Why was a Report Card needed and what does it contain? 7 he´ekeÌkeÀLeve 8 Foreword 10 DeeYeej 12 Acknowledgements 13 Jemlegefveÿ lejerkesÀ mes efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ he´oMe&ve keÀe DeekeÀueve 14 Assessing the performance of MLAs objectively 15 efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀer he´esHeÀeFueW Deewj he´oMe&ve 16 Profiles and Performance of MLAs 16 ÞesCeer Jeeues he=ÿ keÀes kewÀmes heæ{W 20 How to read the Ranking Page 20 cegK³e efJeMues keÀe³e&He´Ceeueer 80 The Methodology 94 (1) cewefì^keÌme - ÞesCeer ceehekeÀ 80 (1) The Matrix – Scale of Ranking 94 (2) MeheLe-he$e kesÀ Devegmeej Deleerle keÀer peevekeÀejer kesÀ ceeheob[ 84 (2) Parameters for Past Records as per Affidavit 97 (3) efJeOeevemeYee ceW Jele&ceeve keÀe³e& mes peg›s ceeheob[ 85 (3) Parameters for Present Performance in the State Legislature 97 (4) pevecele meJex#eCe mes he´ehle ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeDeeW kesÀ ceeheob[ 89 (4) Parameters for People’s Perception as per Opinion Poll 101 (5) vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve kesÀ ceeheob[ 93 (5) Parameters for Negative Marking 107 2 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 3 ìerce THE TEAM Board of Trustees Market Research Agency he´pee ì^mìer yees[& yeepeej DevegmebOeeve SpeWmeer Hansa Research nbmee efjme®e& Nitai Mehta efveleeF& cesnlee Managing Trustee, Praja Foundation; Ashok Das he´yebOekeÀ ì^mìer, he´pee HeÀeGb[sMeve; DeMeeskeÀ oeme Entrepreneur Managing Director, Hansa Research J³eJemee³eer he´yebOe efveosMekeÀ, nbmee efjme®e& Sumangali Gada Anjan Ghosh Founder Trustee, Praja Foundation; Senior Vice President, Hansa Research megcebieueer ie[e Debpeve Iees 4 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 5 WHY WAS A REPORT CARD NEEDED AND efjheesì& keÀe[& keÀer DeeJeM³ekeÀlee ke̳eeW heæ[er Deewj FmeceW ke̳ee efveefnle nw? WHAT DOES IT CONTAIN? Yeejle kesÀ ueesieeW Üeje efveJee&ef®ele he´efleefveefOe³eeW vess efheíues 66 Je 6 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 7 he´ekeÌkeÀLeve ®egveeJeer he´ef¬eÀ³ee ceW SkeÀ celeoelee kesÀ cele keÀe efveCe&³e efJeefYeVe henuegDeeW mes efveOee&efjle neslee nw, pewmes efkeÀ : GvekesÀ DevegYeJe, kegÀue Deewmele DebkeÀ ceW Ieìewleer kesÀ keÀejCe efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀer me$e ceW DevegheeqmLeefle, peve cegÎeW keÀes Gþeves ceW keÀceer, Deewj cegÎeW keÀer GvekeÀer efJe®eejOeeje, jepeveereflekeÀ mecyevOe, peevekeÀejer keÀe mlej, Deewj Gme peevekeÀejer keÀe mesJee efJelejCe yeæ{eJes kesÀ efueS iegCeJeÊee efJeOeevemeYee kesÀ efueS Ghe³egÊeÀ ve nesvee. [eìe keÀe Deewj DeefOekeÀ efJeMues 8 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 9 FOREWORD In the electoral process a voter’s decision to vote is determined by various aspects like The overall average score is constantly dropping because the MLAs are attending less their perceptions, ideology, political affiliations, the level of information they have and sessions, raising less issues and the quality of issues are not as appropriate as required how effectively are they utilising that information for enhanced service delivery. Towards to be raised in the state assembly. If analyse the data furthermore, it shows that the this, Praja’s report cards provide a nuanced layer of information on the comprehensive MLAs attendance has dropped from 92.4% in 2016 to 80.3% in 2019. Whereas, the functioning of our elected representatives. average score of Delhi MLAs in terms of raising issues and quality of questions has not This report card is the fourth in the series and the last of the current term (6th assembly) gone beyond 50% and 40% respectively. in the series of Praja’s MLA report card for Delhi, where we have analysed their working What is affecting the performance of Delhi MLAs? in the deliberative forums and the perceptions of their work by their constituents. The basic duty of a MLA is to attend the assembly sessions to raise questions on We came up with our first MLA report card in Delhi in the year 2016, which was the citizens’ issue and development, deliberate and pass legislation. This is only possible initial working days of the current government and it is crucial to understand how this if legislative assembly is giving more and more opportunity to the MLAs by calling for government, with clear mandate has performed over the last 4 years. maximum number of session days. The more the number of sessions days will ensure that more citizens’ issues will be discussed and necessary laws will be passed. The MLAs have been rated on four quantitative parameters and three qualitative perception-based parameters: 1) Quality of questions asked in the assembly, 2) However, the current Delhi assembly does not seems to be giving much opportunity Number of questions asked, 3) Attendance, 4) Clean criminal record 5) Perceived to the MLAs. The Delhi assembly has called sessions for only 101 days (23rd February least corrupt 6) Perceived accessibility for the public from relevant constituency, and 2015 to 28th February 2019) in four years, which is just 50% in comparison with the 7) Perceived performer for the constituency. We have collected our quantifiable data assembly’s like Maharashtra wherein, they called for maximum of 202 days of sessions through RTI applications over the year. We also commissioned Hansa Research to do in the last four years. This clearly states that the Delhi government is not devoting a scientific‑statistical survey from among 27,121 people of Delhi to gauge the public enough number of days to perform the constitutional duties. perception of the MLAs on the above mentioned parameters. At the same time if we compare the overall average score of Top and Bottom five The first (2016) report card covered the performance of MLAs on above parameters performers there is a huge difference. The overall average score of Top five performers for a period between 23rd February 2015 to 22nd December 2015; second (2017) report is 71.80 % whereas the same for bottom five performer is 36.56%. This statistic shows card from 22nd March 2016 to 18th January 2017; third (2018) report card from 6th March that only the top performers are contributing more to the overall performance of Delhi 2017 to 17th January 2018; and the fourth (current – 2019) report card from 16th March MLAs and the bottom performers are pulling it down. 2018 to 28th February 2019. Based on the above facts and Delhi assembly elections round the corner, we In a parliamentary democracy, MLAs are mandated to attend the assembly sessions, would urge the political parties to give tickets to the candidates who are capable of raise people’s issues, deliberate on them and pass legislations for improved quality of understanding the constitutional processes of governance systems and importance living of the citizens. Hence, it is important for the MLAs to perform on the constitutional of deliberations. At the same time and with help of this report card, we would like to duties first for improved governance. spread the performance of Delhi MLAs to their respective constituents, requesting to Based on this let us now analyse the performance of our MLAs in Delhi: elect the right candidate who can provide them with improved quality of living with the help of democratic processes, with active attendance and good deliberative skills in Overall average score of our MLAs has dropped from 58.8% in 2016 to 53.8% in the the assembly. 2019 report card. This shows that, MLAs performance is showing a declining trend over the past four years in spite of getting full mandate from the citizens of Delhi. None of the MLAs in Delhi scored more than 74% score on their constitution duties. 21 MLAs NITAI MEHTA, have scored an overall average score of less than 50% and all of them come from Aam Managing Trustee, Aadmi Party (AAP). Praja Foundation 10 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 11 DeeYeej ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fme yeele hej keÀYeer Yeer mebosn cele keÀjes efkeÀ efJe®eejMeerue, he´efleye× veeieefjkeÀeW keÀe SkeÀ Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed íesìe mee mecetn ogefve³ee yeoue mekeÀlee nw; ³ener SkeÀcee$e yeele nw pees DeyelekeÀ ngF& nw~ citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that – ever has. ceeiee&jsì ceer[ – Margaret Mead Deepe mece³e keÀer ³en ceeBie nw efkeÀ nce meye peeie=le neskeÀj kegÀí heefjJele&ve keÀer ceeBie keÀjW Deewj Gmes ueeves keÀe nj He´³eeme keÀjW~ The change comes when people stand up and demand for it, and then strive to get it. Today we are at that juncture of history where time demands that we stand up and Fme efjheesì& keÀe[& keÀes lew³eej keÀjves ceW Meeefceue ueesie hetjer lejn mes ³en ceeveles nQ efkeÀ peye mece³e Gvemes kegÀí keÀjves keÀer demand that change and go and get it. Gcceero keÀj jne nw lees Jes ®eghe-®eehe meye osKeles ngS Fble]peej veneR keÀj mekeÀles~ Fme efjheesì& keÀe[& keÀes efJekeÀefmele keÀjves Individuals involved in developing this report card strongly believe that they cannot kesÀ efueS Gve meYeer ueesieeW ves Yeejle kesÀ mebefJeOeeve Deewj GmekesÀ Üeje - mebefJeOeeve kesÀ G®®e DeeoMeeX - v³ee³e, mJeleb$elee, just wait and remain mute spectators when time is demanding action from them. All meceevelee Deewj YeeF&®eejs keÀes neefmeue keÀjves keÀer efoMee ceW - yesnlej Deewj kegÀMeue Meemeve yeveeves kesÀ DeJemej ceW J³eehekeÀ of them have come together to develop this report card with a over-arching belief efJeéeeme kesÀ meeLe efceuekeÀj keÀece efkeÀ³ee nw~ in the Constitution of India and the opportunity it creates for improved and efficient governance – the mean towards achieving the high ideals of the constitution – Justice, ³en hegeqmlekeÀe he´pee keÀer ceewefuekeÀ ìerce kesÀ JeemleefJekeÀ, mebye× he´³eemeeW keÀe SkeÀ mebie´n nw~ nce, efJeMes Fme He´keÀeMeve kesÀ leke&À he´pee HeÀeTb[sMeve Üeje He´keÀeefMele efkeÀ³es peeles nw Deewj ³en ³etjesHeer³eve ³etefve³eve Deewj Dev³e oeleeDeeW The contents of this publication are published by Praja Foundation and in no way can Deewj He´e³eespekeÀeW kesÀ efJe®eejeW keÀes vener oMee&lee nw~ be taken to reflect the views of the European Union and other donors and sponsors. 12 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 13 ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF Jemlegefveÿ lejerkesÀ mes efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ he´oMe&ve keÀe DeekeÀueve MLAs OBJECTIVELY Yeejle ceW jepeveerefle%eeW keÀer Deeuees®evee keÀe he´®eueve nw~ he´Mve ³en Gþlee nw efkeÀ: nceejs efveJee&ef®ele he´efleefveefOe³eeW The air in India is thick with criticism of politicians. The question that arises kesÀ he´oMe&ve keÀe Jemlegefveÿ DeebkeÀueve kewÀmes efkeÀ³ee pee mekeÀlee nw? ³e]keÀerveve Gvemes GvekesÀ ner efJe®eej hetívee is: how can the performance of our elected representatives be assessed objectively? Surely the right way cannot be by asking them for their opinion mener lejerkeÀe veneR nesiee~ ve ner GvekeÀe DeebkeÀueve keÀjves kesÀ efueS ®ebo jepeveweflekeÀ hebef[leeW (efpevekeÀe Dehevee ner of themselves. Nor is it adequate to get a few political pundits (who may have ¢eqäkeÀesCe nes mekeÀlee nw) keÀes hetívee he³ee&hle nesiee~ their own angles) to evaluate them. Ssmee DeekeÀueve keÀjves keÀe SkeÀcee$e lejerkeÀe pees efve 14 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 15 DETAILS OF MLAs WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT CARD PROFILES AND Name Party Details Reasons Born: 16th August, 1968 Chief Minister PERFORMANCE Birth Place: Village Siwani, (from Distt. Bhiwani (Haryana) 16/2/2015 to till date) AAP Education: B.Tech Mechanical OF MLAs Engineering Profession: Political Activist (Ex-Chief Minister of Delhi) Constituency: 40 Arvind Kejriwal (Area: New Delhi) Born: 10th May, 1975 Minister (from Birth Place: Gobardih, 16/2/2015 to Mau (U.P.) till date) AAP Education: Post Graduate Profession: Social Worker Zone: Shahdara North Constituency: 67 Gopal Rai (Area: Babarpur) Born: 21st May, 1981 Minister (from Birth Place: Delhi 20/10/2015 Education: Bachelor of Business to till date) Of the total 70 MLAs from the city, the overall scaling is done for 60; while nine MLAs who are AAP Studies ministers, Speaker & Deputy Speaker (hence do not ask any questions to the government or raise any issues in the house), one MLA representing Cantonment Board (where survey was Profession: Business not conducted). Zone: Sadar Paharganj MLAs' education, profession, constituency details, date of birth, age & birth place have been Constituency: 22 taken from the affidavit submitted by the candidate during the election and/or from Delhi Imran Hussain (Area: Ballimaran) assembly website. Born: 22nd July, 1974 Minister For understanding details on the ranking and scales of the marking kindly go to the section (from on methodology. Birth Place: Najafgarh 31/05/2017 to Education: LLM till date) Local Area Development fund for the current year has not been calculated in the scoring AAP because the data is incomplete. There is discrepancy in the RTI response and the fund Profession: Lawyer utilisation uploaded on the Delhi Government website due to the transfer of implementation of Zone: Najafgarh the MLA Local Area Development fund (MLA LAD) scheme from the District Urban Development Agency to the Urban Development Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Constituency: 35 Delhi. Hence to maintain parity in the scoring for this year we have not calculated marks in (Area: Najafgarh) this section for all the MLAs. Kailash Gahlot 16 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 17 Name Party Details Reasons Name Party Details Reasons Age: 45 Deputy Chief Age: 53 Minister Minister (from Education: Diploma in Journalism Education: B. Arch (from 16/2/2015 Profession: Self Employed to till date) Profession: Social Service & 16/2/2015 to AAP AAP (Architect) Political Activist till date) Zone: Shahdara South Zone: Rohini Constituency: 57 Constituency: 15 (Area: Patparganj) (Area: Shakurbasti) Manish Sisodia Satyendar Kumar Jain th Born: 26 April, 1968 Minister Born: 5th January, 1978 Cantonment Birth Place: Ghonda, Delhi (from Board 19/05/2017 to Birth Place: Village Chhara, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) Education: B.A., L.L.B. till date) AAP AAP Profession: Advocate Education: B.A. Zone: Shahdara North Profession: Retired Government Servant, Ex. MLA Constituency: 63 (Area: Seemapuri) Constituency: 38 (Area: Delhi Cantt.) Rajendra Pal Gautam Surender Singh Born: 10th June, 1987 Deputy Speaker Birth Place: Delhi (from 7/6/2016 Education: M.A. to till date) AAP Profession: Social Worker Zone: Rohini Constituency: 12 (Area: Mangol Puri (SC)) Rakhi Birla Born: 5th January, 1948 Speaker (from Birth Place: Safidon Mandi, 16/2/2015 Haryana to till date) AAP Education: B.A. Profession: Retired Business Man Zone: Shahdara South Constituency: 62 Ram Niwas Goel (Area: Shahdara) 18 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 19 HOW TO READ THE RANKING PAGE : Overall Rank for the current year (2019) is given after summation of all the weightages. The top three ranks are awarded a trophy - The Torch. The First gets gold, the DELHI’S second silver and the third bronze. MLAs NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Score Score Score Score Score % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 MS/MR POPULAR AND THEIR B 75.46 3 A 12.02 A 8.69 B 22.38 A 5 C 26.21 RANKINGS Total Scores Personal A details Areas for ranking: 1. Attendance 2. Issues Raised B Badges for high ranks 3. Quality of Issues Raised in individual areas 4. Criminal Record (including the negative MS/MR PERCEPTION OF POPULAR PUBLIC SERVICES marking for criminal records) + PERCEIVED AS 5. Perceived Performance E ACCESSIBLE (Perception of Public Services + C Perceived as Accessible + F Perceived Least Corrupt) MS/MR QUALITY OF COMMITTED ISSUES RAISED + Colour Coding: NO. OF D ISSUES RAISED Grade ‘A’ – 100% to 80% marks Grade ‘B’ – Less than 80% to 70% marks Grade ‘C’ – Less than 70% to 60% marks MS/MR CLEAN CRIMINAL CLEAN RECORD Grade ‘D’ – Less than 60% to 50% marks + PERCEIVED LEAST Grade ‘E’ – Less than 50% to 35% marks CORRUPT Grade ‘F’ – Less than 35% marks 20 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 21 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 59.32 6 6.61 12.62 5 23.12 2019 D 16 C C E A D AAP C 68.10 11 A 8 A 8.77 D 15.31 A 5 C 24.62 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 16th October, 1973, Birth Place: New Delhi, Zone: Najafgarh, Adarsh Shastri Quality of issues; Edu.: Post Graduate, Profession: Public Service & Social Worker Constituency No.: 33, (Area: Dwarka) Perceived Performance 61.21 10 8.64 15.65 -5 25.86 2019 C 12 A A D F C B 71.79 4 A 10 A 8.77 D 15.21 A 5 C 26.22 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 14th July, 1975, Birth Place: New Delhi, Zone: South, Ajay Dutt Shift: New FIR registered Edu.: M.B.A. (Executive), Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 48, (Area: Ambedkar Nagar) 55.85 8 3.89 8.95 5 24.22 2019 D 26 A E F A C AAP E 49.85 40 A 10 F 0.35 F 3.97 A 5 C 25.03 2018 Date of Birth: 15th July, 1967, Birth Place: Libaspur Village, Delhi, Zone: Civil Line, Ajesh Yadav Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Edu.: B.A.(P), Profession: Business Constituency No.: 5, (Area: Badli) 55.37 10 8.3 14.82 -10 26.48 2019 D 28 A A D F C AAP D 52.25 37 A 8 F 3.5 E 9.84 F -5 B 30.30 2018 Akhilesh Pati Age: 34, Zone: Keshav Puram, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Tripathi Edu.: M.A., Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 18, (Area: Model Town) Quality of issues 22 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 23 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 52.74 8 6.1 11.82 -5 26.18 2019 D 33 A C E F C AAP D 57.69 26 A 10 B 7.89 E 13.39 F -5 C 25.52 2018 Date of Birth: 21st September, 1975, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: City and Sadar Paharganj, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Alka Lamba Edu.: M.Sc., M.Ed, Profession: Politician Constituency No.: 20, (Area: Chandi Chowk) Quality of issues 37.67 6 0.33 5.45 -5 26.01 2019 E 58 C F F F C F 34.26 57 C 6 F 1.57 F 3.62 F -7 C 25.35 AAP 2018 Amanatullah Date of Birth: 10th January, 1974, Birth Place: Vill. Aghwan Pur, Distt. Meerut U.P., Zone: Central, Khan Edu.: HSC, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 54, (Area: Okhla) 61.79 10 4.23 9.55 5 26.92 2019 C 11 A E E A C AAP C 61.57 18 A 10 D 5.26 E 11.10 A 5 C 24.13 2018 Date of Birth: 2nd July, 1957, Birth Place: Distt, Farrukhabad (UP), Zone: Shahdara South, Anil Kumar Bajpai Shift: Perceived Performance Edu.: B.A., Profession: Self Employed (Business) Constituency No.: 61, (Area: Gandhi Nagar) MR CLEAN 47.19 10 0 0.00 5 26.83 2019 E 46 A F F A C AAP D 55.38 30 A 10 F 0.35 F 6.97 A 5 C 27.29 2018 Date of Birth: 20th March, 1976, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: City and Sadar Paharganj Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Asim Ahmed Khan Edu.: B.A., Profession: Business Constituency No.: 21, (Area: Matia Mahal) Perceived Performance 24 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 25 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 MR CLEAN 48.81 8 1.01 4.86 5 25.50 2019 E 42 A F F A C D 57.75 25 A 10 E 4.38 F 9.16 A 5 C 24.32 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 18th February, 1963, Birth Place: New Delhi, Zone: Central, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Avtar Singh Edu.: Under Matric, Profession: Contractor Constituency No.: 51, (Area: Kalkaji) Quality of issues 59.73 8 4.74 9.90 5 26.11 2019 D 15 A E E A C AAP D 59.47 23 A 8 E 3.68 F 8.87 A 5 C 27.95 2018 Date of Birth: 11th March, 1974, Birth Place: Samastipur, Bihar, Zone: Keshav Puram, Bandana Kumari Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Edu.: B.A., Profession: Ex. MLA Constituency No.: 14, (Area: Shalimar Bagh) 64.37 4 8.98 15.70 5 24.47 2019 C 9 E A D A C AAP C 68.53 10 A 10 B 7.36 D 14.11 A 5 C 25.63 2018 Date of Birth: 2nd December, 1970, Birth Place: Palam, New Delhi, Zone: Najafgarh, Bhavna Gaur Edu.: B.Ed., Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 37, (Area: Palam) 57.17 4 5.25 11.38 5 25.69 2019 D 24 E D E A C E 43.52 49 A 8 F 0 F 0 A 5 C 25.35 AAP 2018 Devinder Kumar Date of Birth: 30th October, 1965, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Najafgarh, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Sehrawat Edu.: B.Sc., M.Sc., Business MGT (IIM-A), Profession: Social Activist Constituency No.: 36, (Area: Bijwasan) 26 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 27 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 37.84 6 3.22 8.07 -5 20.67 2019 E 57 C F F F D AAP E 35.88 54 A 10 F 1.57 F 4.87 F -5 E 19.64 2018 Date of Birth: 31st December, 1977, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Central, Dinesh Mohaniya Edu.: HSC, Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 49, (Area: Sangam Vihar) 58.96 10 4.06 9.04 5 24.90 2019 D 19 A E F A C D 59.68 22 A 10 E 4.03 E 11.12 A 5 D 23.54 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 30th December, 1963, Birth Place: Village Bhikan Pur Distt. Gaziabad, Zone: Shahdara North, Fateh Singh Edu.: B.A., Profession: Material Dealer Constituency No.: 68, (Area: Gokalpur) MR POPULAR 70.07 10 7.79 14.15 5 26.63 2019 B 5 A B D A C AAP C 64.47 15 A 10 C 6.49 E 12.64 A 5 C 24.12 2018 Date of Birth: 3rd December, 1963, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: West, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Girish Soni Edu.: SSC, I.T.I Refrigeration & Air-conditioning, Constituency No.: 26, (Area: Madipur) Perceived Performance Profession: Self Manufacturing & Trading of Leather Goods 54.73 6 6.44 13.04 0 23.52 2019 D 29 C C E F D E 47.40 43 E 4 D 5.61 E 12.84 F -5 C 24.58 AAP 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 30th October, 1978, Birth Place: Ghuman Hera, Delhi, Zone: Najafgarh, Gulab Singh Quality of issues; Edu.: HSC, Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 34, (Area: Matiala) Criminal case withdrawn 28 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 29 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 52.58 10 0.16 6.72 5 26.08 2019 D 35 A F F A C AAP E 46.16 45 A 10 F 0.35 F 3.97 A 5 D 22.53 2018 Hazari Lal Date of Birth: 10th May, 1948, Birth Place: Karol Bagh, Delhi, Zone: Karol Bagh, Shift: Quality of issues; Chauhan Edu.: Ninth, Profession: Business, Social Worker Constituency No.: 24, (Area: Patel Nagar (SC)) Perceived Performance 56.02 10 7.45 13.65 -5 24.13 2019 D 25 A B D F C E 47.51 42 A 10 C 6.84 E 11.85 F -10 D 23.44 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 31st May, 1971, Birth Place: Ambala Cantt., Zone: West, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Jagdeep Singh Edu.: HSC, Profession: Self Employed (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 28, (Area: Hari Nagar) Criminal case withdrawn MR COMMITTED 72.13 10 9.83 17.20 5 23.49 2019 B 2 A A C A D BJP B 73.56 2 A 10 A 10 C 17.75 A 5 C 24.13 2018 Date of Birth: 4th July, 1953, Birth Place: Vill. Karawal Nagar, Delhi, Zone: Shahdara North, Jagdish Pradhan Edu.: SSC, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 69, (Area: Mustafabad) 55.76 10 6.94 12.83 -5 25.21 2019 D 27 A C E F C AAP C 63.13 17 A 10 A 9.12 D 15.80 F -5 C 27.06 2018 Date of Birth: 15th March, 1981, Birth Place: Rampur (U.P.), Zone: West, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Jarnail Singh Edu.: HSC, Profession: Business (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 29, (Area: Tilak Nagar) Perceived Performance 30 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 31 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 MR POPULAR 52.66 10 4.23 9.51 -5 28.29 2019 D 34 A E E F B E 43.39 50 E 4 F 0.35 F 6.97 F 0 C 26.90 AAP 2018 Jitender Singh Date of Birth: 12th April, 1966, Birth Place: Uttar Pradesh, Zone: Keshav Puram, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Quality Tomar Edu.: L.L.B, Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 16, (Area: Tri Nagar) of issues; Perceived Performance 40.72 10 0.33 2.45 0 22.91 2019 E 52 A F F F D E 44.55 47 A 8 F 0.35 F 6.97 F 0 C 24.00 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 13th November, 1980, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Shahdara North, Shift: Quality of issues; Kapil Mishra Edu.: M.A. (Social Work), Profession: Social Work Constituency No.: 70, (Area: Karawal Nagar) Perceived Performance 44.95 6 0.33 3.95 5 24.43 2019 E 49 C F F A C AAP D 55.16 32 A 8 F 1.92 F 6.47 A 5 B 28.01 2018 Kartar Singh Date of Birth: 12th December, 1962, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: South, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Quality Tanwar Edu.: HSC, Diploma in Civil Engineering, Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 46, (Area: Chhatarpur) of issues; Perceived Performance 35.73 10 1.18 3.89 -5 20.87 2019 E 59 A F F F D C 60.46 21 A 10 E 4.73 E 10.81 A 5 D 23.90 AAP 2018 Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Date of Birth: 7th August, 1956, Birth Place: Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi, Zone: Central, Madan Lal Perceived Performance; Edu.: M.A., L.L.B., Profession: Advocate Constituency No.: 42, (Area: Kasturba Nagar) New FIR registered 32 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 33 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 40.29 8 1.86 6.90 -5 23.52 2019 E 54 A F F F D AAP E 35.70 55 C 6 F 0.35 F 3.97 F -5 C 25.60 2018 Date of Birth: 5th May, 1963, Birth Place: New Delhi, Zone: West, Mahinder Yadav Edu.: SSC, Profession: Self Employed (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 31, (Area: Vikaspuri) MR COMMITTED 61.89 8 9.66 16.90 -5 26.23 2019 C 10 A A C F C C 69.82 8 A 10 A 9.64 C 16.79 F 0 C 26.90 BJP 2018 Manjinder Singh Date of Birth: 20th February 1972, Birth Place: Sirsa, Haryana, Zone: West, Sirsa Edu.: 2nd year of B.A. Honours, Profession: Agriculturalist & Business Constituency No.: 27 (Area: Rajouri Garden) 61.15 8 5.25 10.80 5 26.04 2019 C 13 A D E A C D 56.31 28 A 10 E 4.73 E 11.23 F 0 C 24.54 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 6th September, 1978, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Shahdara South, Shift: No. of issues; Perceived Manoj Kumar Edu.: SSC, Profession: Politician & Social Worker Constituency No.: 56, (Area: Kondli) Performance; Criminal case withdrawn 49.05 8 1.35 5.51 5 24.74 2019 E 40 A F F A C AAP E 47.18 44 C 6 F 0.35 F 6.97 A 5 C 24.50 2018 Date of Birth: 14th July, 1961, Birth Place: Village Palwara, Distt. Hapur, U.P., Zone: Shahdara North, Mohd. Ishraque Edu.: Primary School, Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 65, (Area: Seelampur) 34 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 35 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 MR POPULAR 73.83 10 8.98 16.31 5 26.84 2019 B 1 A A C A C B 74.63 1 A 10 A 9.47 C 17.47 A 5 C 25.97 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 6th November, 1963, Birth Place: Kaithal, Haryana, Zone: Rohini, Mohinder Goyal Edu.: SSC, Profession: Business - Property dealing Constituency No.: 6, (Area: Rithala) 47.27 8 2.71 7.36 0 23.84 2019 E 45 A F F F D AAP E 48.79 41 A 10 F 1.92 F 5.34 F 0 C 26.08 2018 Narayan Dutt Date of Birth: 15th December, 1972, Birth Place: Village Kotvan, Distt. Mathura, U.P., Zone: Central, Sharma Edu.: HSC, Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 53, (Area: Badarpur) 33.31 0 2.71 8.03 -5 23.91 2019 F 60 F F F F D AAP D 53.05 35 C 6 D 5.96 E 11.15 F 0 C 25.28 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 22nd November, 1976, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: West, Naresh Balyan Quality of issues; Perceived Edu.: Ninth, Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 32, (Area: Uttam Nagar) Performance; New FIR registered 40.54 8 2.54 8.25 -7 23.73 2019 E 53 A F F F D AAP D 53.39 34 A 10 D 5.26 E 12.20 F -5 C 25.26 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 5th February, 1972, Birth Place: Kapashera, New Delhi, Zone: South, Naresh Yadav Quality of issues; Edu.: B.Com., L.L.B , Profession: Advocate Constituency No.: 45, (Area: Mehrauli) Perceived Performance 36 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 37 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 51.61 10 5.08 9.84 -5 26.11 2019 D 39 A D E F C B 70.05 7 A 10 C 6.49 E 12.84 A 5 B 29.22 AAP 2018 Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Date of Birth: 16th June, 1973, Birth Place: Meerut, Zone: Shahdara South, Nitin Tyagi Perceived Performance; Edu.: Post Graduate, Diploma in Business Management, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 58, (Area: Laxmi Nagar) New FIR registered 71.07 6 9.49 16.86 5 27.16 2019 B 4 C A C A C BJP Om Prakash Date of Birth: 03rd March, 1953, Birth Place: Delhi Zone: Shahdara South, Sharma Edu.: Graduate, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 59 (Area: Vishwas Nagar) 69.16 10 9.32 16.08 0 27.31 2019 C 6 A A D F C C 67.06 13 A 10 A 8.24 D 15.28 A 5 D 22.18 AAP 2018 Pankaj Kant Date of Birth: 4th May, 1972, Birth Place: Gajraula, Uttar Pradesh, Zone: Civil Line, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Singhal Edu.: M.A. Political Science, Profession: Politician Constituency No.: 3, (Area: Timarpur) Perceived Performance 52.79 10 5.59 11.89 -5 24.67 2019 D 32 A D E F C AAP F 33.90 58 A 10 F 0 F 0 F -5 C 24.21 2018 Date of Birth: 4th June, 1977, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: South, Parmila Tokas Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Edu.: HSC, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 44, (Area: R K Puram) 38 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 39 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 60.43 8 8.47 15.85 -2 24.08 2019 C 14 A A D F C D 55.36 31 A 10 E 4.73 E 11.12 F -2 C 25.74 AAP 2018 Pawan Kumar Date of Birth: 30th March, 1970, Birth Place: Bass, Distt. Hissar, Haryana, Zone: Civil Line, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Sharma Edu.: HSC, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 4, (Area: Adarsh Nagar) 39.07 4 1.69 5.93 -5 27.49 2019 E 55 E F F F C AAP E 39.43 51 C 6 F 2.45 F 8.91 F -5 D 22.11 2018 Date of Birth: 1st April, 1988, Birth Place: New Delhi, Zone: South, Prakash Edu.: M.Com, Profession: Politician (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 47, (Area: Deoli (SC)) 52.40 6 2.71 7.46 5 26.61 2019 D 36 C F F A C B 71.20 5 A 10 B 7.54 E 13.26 A 5 B 29.84 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 21st December, 1984, Birth Place: Bhopal, Zone: Central, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Quality Praveen Kumar Edu.: M.B.A, Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 41, (Area: Jangpura) of issues; Perceived Performance 42.03 6 3.55 8.94 -7 25.44 2019 E 51 C E F F C AAP E 45.30 46 A 10 F 2.63 F 7.22 F -5 C 25.19 2018 Raghuvinder Date of Birth: 18th December, 1966, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Rohini, Shift: Attendance Shokeen Edu.: B.Sc. Engineering Constituency No.: 11, (Area: Nangloi Jat) 40 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 41 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 57.87 10 7.28 14.01 -5 25.68 2019 D 23 A B D F C AAP B 73.02 3 A 10 A 9.12 C 16.37 A 5 C 25.88 2018 Date of Birth: 2nd November, 1978, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Keshav Puram, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Rajesh Gupta Edu.: HSC, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 17, (Area: Wazirpur) New FIR registered MR POPULAR 53.85 8 6.1 11.87 -5 27.19 2019 D 31 A C E F C AAP C 67.07 12 A 10 B 7.89 D 14.32 F 0 B 28.51 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 18th October, 1964, Birth Place: Jalandhar (Punjab), Zone: West, Rajesh Rishi Quality of issues; Perceived Edu.: B.Sc., Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 30, (Area: Janakpuri) Performance; Chargesheet filed 48.74 8 1.86 5.59 5 24.86 2019 E 43 A F F A C AAP D 52.99 36 A 10 F 2.63 F 7.55 A 5 C 24.16 2018 Date of Birth: 25th July, 1973, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Shahdara South, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Raju Dhingan Edu.: Ninth, Profession: Politician (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 55, (Area: Trilokpuri) Quality of issues 58.91 6 5.76 12.03 5 25.17 2019 D 20 C D E A C AAP Date of Birth: 02nd September, 1964, Birth Place: Uttar Pradesh, Zone: Shahdara South, Ram Chander Edu.: Eight Passed, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 07 (Area: Bawana) 42 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 43 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 52.26 8 5.93 11.72 -5 26.00 2019 D 37 A D E F C AAP E 39.29 52 A 10 F 1.92 F 5.34 F -5 D 22.06 2018 Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Date of Birth: 13th August, 1988, Birth Place: Samastipur (Bihar), Zone: Rohini, Rituraj Govind Perceived Performance; Edu.: Advance Diploma in Hotel Management, Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 9, (Area: Kirari) Chargesheet filed MR CLEAN 71.88 10 7.79 14.72 5 27.77 2019 B 3 A B D A C AAP C 69.11 9 A 10 B 7.19 D 14.96 A 5 C 25.51 2018 Date of Birth: 7th February, 1954, Birth Place: Kashi Pur (UP), Zone: Shahdara South, S. K. Bagga Shift: Perceived Performance Edu.: M.Com., L.L.B, Profession: Advocate Constituency No.: 60, (Area: Krishna Nagar) 45.75 10 3.72 9.73 -10 27.02 2019 E 47 A E E F C AAP E 38.53 53 A 8 F 3.15 F 8.32 F -10 C 24.13 2018 Date of Birth: 10th October, 1959, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Central, Shift: Attendance; Quality of issues; Sahi Ram Edu.: Eleventh, Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 52, (Area: Tuglakabad) Perceived Performance 42.51 6 3.22 7.47 0 21.69 2019 E 50 C F F F D AAP E 43.98 48 C 6 F 2.63 F 6.55 F 0 C 24.60 2018 Date of Birth: 12th July, 1980, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Rohini, Sandeep Kumar Edu.: B.A., L.L.B., Profession: Advocate Constituency No.: 10, (Area: Sultan Pur Majra (SC)) 44 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 45 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 48.86 6 6.77 12.82 -5 22.82 2019 E 41 C C E F D D 53.46 33 C 6 D 5.96 E 12.10 F 0 D 23.72 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 1st May, 1979, Birth Place: Madhubani (Bihar), Zone: Civil Line, Sanjeev Jha Shift: Chargesheet filed Edu.: B.A. (Hon), Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 2, (Area: Burari) 47.35 4 1.86 6.36 5 25.77 2019 E 44 E F F A C AAP F 34.77 56 F 0 F 3.15 F 7.47 F -5 C 25.41 2018 Date of Birth: 20th March, 1986, Birth Place: Rai Brailly, Zone: Shahdara North, Shift: Attendance; Sarita Singh Edu.: M.A. (Sociology), Profession: Social Worker Constituency No.: 64, (Area: Rohtas Nagar) Criminal case withdrawn 58.31 8 7.11 12.89 5 19.39 2019 D 21 A B E A E AAP C 60.94 20 A 8 E 4.03 F 8.58 A 5 B 29.28 2018 Saurabh Age: Not given, Edu.: B. Tech Computer Sc., L.L.B., Zone: South, Bharadwaj Profession: Software Engineer (Ex. MLA) Constituency No.: 50, (Area: Greater Kailash) 38.22 8 0.33 3.20 -5 26.78 2019 E 56 A F F F C AAP D 52.11 38 A 10 E 4.38 E 11.29 F -5 C 25.84 2018 Date of Birth: 29th June, 1975, Birth Place: Village Bakoli, Delhi, Zone: Narela, Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Sharad Kumar Edu.: SSC, Profession: Farmer Constituency No.: 1, (Area: Narela) Quality of issues 46 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 47 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 52.13 8 1.86 5.78 5 25.88 2019 D 38 A F F A C AAP B 71.17 6 A 10 A 8.42 D 14.60 A 5 C 26.59 2018 Shift: Attendance; No. of issues; Date of Birth: 6th February, 1962, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Karol Bagh, Shiv Charan Goel Quality of issues; Edu.: HSC, Profession: Businessman Constituency No.: 25, (Area: Moti Nagar) Perceived Performance 58.14 8 4.91 10.11 5 24.21 2019 D 22 A E E A C AAP D 57.34 27 A 10 D 5.61 E 11.96 F 0 D 23.91 2018 Date of Birth: 1st July, 1960, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Shahdara North, Shift: Criminal case withdrawn; Shri Dutt Sharma Edu.: HSC, Profession: Social Activist Constituency No.: 66, (Area: Ghonda) Perceived Performance 44.99 10 1.52 5.89 -5 27.33 2019 E 48 A F F F C AAP D 50.56 39 A 10 E 3.68 F 9.07 F -5 C 27.29 2018 Date of Birth: 17th February, 1977, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: City and Sadar Paharganj, Som Dutt Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues Edu.: B.A., Profession: Social Service Constituency No.: 19, (Area: Sadar Bazar) 59.26 10 8.81 15.83 -7 25.66 2019 D 17 A A D F C AAP C 60.95 19 A 10 A 8.42 D 14.72 F -7 B 28.77 2018 Age: 44, Zone: South, Somnath Bharti Edu.: M.Sc. (Maths), Profession: Advocate Constituency No.: 43, (Area: Malviya Nagar) 48 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 49 NO. OF QUALITY OF LEAST CRIMINAL PERCEIVED TOTAL ATTENDANCE ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED RECORD PERFORMANCE MLA PARTY GRADE SCORE RANK Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual % Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade out of 10 out of 10 out of 27 out of 5 out of 40 54.58 8 7.62 14.66 -5 23.57 2019 D 30 A B D F D AAP D 55.62 29 A 10 C 6.84 E 12.31 F -5 C 25.70 2018 Date of Birth: 1st July, 1957, Birth Place: Village Hiran Kudna, Delhi, Zone: Narela, Sukhvir Singh Edu.: M.A. (Eco), Profession: Retired Govt. Servant Constituency No.: 8, (Area: Mundka) 59.15 8 4.23 9.17 5 26.79 2019 D 18 A E F A C C 66.64 14 A 10 B 7.71 D 14.33 A 5 D 23.26 AAP 2018 Vijender Garg Date of Birth: 3rd March, 1963, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Karol Bagh, Vijay Edu.: B.Com., Profession: Self Employed Constituency No.: 39, (Area: Rajinder Nagar) MR COMMITTED 64.87 10 10.00 17.63 -5 26.00 2019 C 8 A A C F C BJP C 64.27 16 A 10 A 9.82 C 17.31 F -5 C 25.93 2018 Date of Birth: 14th August, 1963, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Rohini, Vijender Kumar Shift: Other MLA movement Edu.: M.Com, Profession: Business Constituency No.: 13, (Area: Rohini) 69.14 10 8.13 14.18 5 25.37 2019 C 7 A A D A C D 58.29 24 A 10 D 5.96 E 10.97 F 0 C 25.45 AAP 2018 Date of Birth: 19th May, 1983, Birth Place: Delhi, Zone: Karol Bagh, Shift: No. of issues; Quality of issues; Vishesh Ravi Edu.: B.A. (Prog.), Profession: Business Constituency No.: 23, (Area: Karol Bagh) Criminal case withdrawn 50 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 51 cegK³e efJeMues Note: Number of MLAs who were ranked in 2016 are 58 (55 MLAs from AAP and 3 MLAs from BJP), in 2017 were 59 (57 MLAs from AAP and 2 MLAs from BJP), in 2018 were 58 (55 MLAs from AAP and 3 MLAs from BJP), in 2019 were 60 (56 MLAs Overfrom AAPall and Gr 4 adMLAse from BJP). Overall Grade No. No.of Issues of Issues Raised Raised 25 25 25 25 A - 100% to 80% marks Avg. Score B - Less than 80% to 70% marks 49.9% in 2016, 22 C - Less than 70% to 60% marks 48.3% in 2017, D - Less than 60% to 50% marks 20 20 20 20 E - Less than 50% to 35% marks 18 18 18 48.5% in 2018 & 18 F - Less than 35% marks 49.3% in 2019 17 16 16 16 16 14 15 14 14 15 14 13 Total No. Issues 11 11 10 10 Raised: 951 in 2016, 10 926 in 2017, 9 No. of MLAs (60) 10 8 8 1032 in 2018 & No. of MLAs (60) 8 7 7 7 7 2542 in 2019 Avg. Score 5 58.8% in 2016, 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 53.4% in 2017, 3 2 2 1 55.4% in 2018 & 1 0 0 0 0 53.8% in 2019 0 0 0 01 to 56 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 Above 50 ABCDEF Issues Raised Grade Quality of Issues Raised AttendanceAendance Quality of Issues Raised 60 30 A - 100% to 80% marks 27 B - Less than 80% to 70% marks 52 51 25 C - Less than 70% to 60% marks 24 24 50 48 25 D - Less than 60% to 50% marks 44 E - Less than 50% to 35% marks F - Less than 35% marks 19 40 A - 100% to 80% marks 20 18 18 Avg. Score B - Less than 80% to 70% marks 92.4% in 2016, C - Less than 70% to 60% marks Avg. Score 15 15 30 84.7% in 2017, D - Less than 60% to 50% marks 39% in 2016, 88.6% in 2018 & E - Less than 50% to 35% marks 35.8% in 2017, 12 12 80.3% in 2019 F - Less than 35% marks No. of MLAs (60) 38.7% in 2018 & 10 No. of MLAs (60) 9 10 38.5% in 2019 20 7 5 5 5 11 5 10 7 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 ABCDEF ABCDEF Grade Grade 52 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 53 Perceived Least Corrupt Perceived Accesibility Perceived Least Corrupt Perceived Accesibility 45 35 35 45 A - 100% to 80% marks Avg. Score A - 100% to 80% marks B - Less than 80% to 70% marks 40 B - Less than 80% to 70% marks 64% in 2016, 40 C - Less than 70% to 60% marks C - Less than 70% to 60% marks 30 64.9% in 2017, D - Less than 60% to 50% marks 28 33 D - Less than60% to 50% marks 50.4% in 2018 & E - Less than 50% to 35% marks 35 Avg. Score E - Less than 50% to 35% marks 49.2% in 2019 F - Less than 35% marks F - Less than 35% marks 25 30 67.8% in 2016, 28 60.9% in 2017, 20 25 85.7% in 2018 & 20 83.2% in 2019 20 15 16 16 20 14 16 15 13 15 No. of MLAs (60) No. of MLAs (60) 15 11 9 11 10 8 8 8 8 8 10 5 6 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 5 2 2 2 2 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 1 0 0 ABCriminalCD Record EF ABParty-wise AverageCD Score EF Grade Grade Criminal Record Party-wise Average Score 69.22 38 66.04 66.34 67.49 40 Good - above 70% 70 Average - 70% to 50% 58.44 Poor - below 50% 33 35 32 60 52.9254.64 52.79 30 29 2016 30 26 27 Avg. Score 50 50% in 2016, 2017 25 11.5% in 2017, 40 2018 4.8% in 2018 & Score (in %) 2019 20 -6% in 2019 18 30 Average No. of MLAs (60) Number of MLAs with: 15 FIR as per Affidavit February 2015 10 20 New FIRs Registered as on 31st December 2018 27* 10 10 Charge sheeted as on 31st December 2018 29 5 2 0 0 0 0 AAP (56) BJP (4) 0 Polical Party (No. of MLAs) Good Average Poor Note: In 2016, 55 MLAs from AAP and 3 from BJP were ranked. In 2017, 57 MLAs from AAP and Grade 2 from BJP were ranked whereas in 2018, 55 MLAs from AAP and 3 MLAs from BJP are ranked, (*) Includes 6 MLAs had FIRs before elections as declared in their affidavit in 2019, 56 MLAs from AAP and 4 MLAs from BJP are ranked. 54 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 55 TOP 5 MLAs IN OVERALL Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 100) 2018 2019 Average Score for Different Parameters Rohini 6 AAP Mohinder Goyal 73.83 1 1 Average Score for Different Parameters Shahdara North 69 BJP Jagdish Pradhan 72.13 2 2 Shahdara South 60 AAP S. K. Bagga 71.88 9 3 100.0 92.4 Shahdara South 59 BJP Om Prakash Sharma 71.07 - 4 88.6 85.7 90.0 84.7 83.2 80.3 80.0 West 26 AAP Girish Soni 70.07 15 5 67.8 70.0 64.9 64.0 62.9 60.9 58.8 57.6 55.8 55.9 60.0 55.4 53.8 53.4 50.4 49.9 50.0 49.3 49.2 48.5 48.3 ) 50.0 BOTTOM 5 MLAs IN OVERALL 39.0 38.7 38.5 40.0 35.8 Score (in % 30.0 Assembly Overall Rank Average 20.0 Constituency Political Score 11.5 Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 100) 2018 2019 10.0 4. 8 0.0 West 32 AAP Naresh Balyan 33.31 35 60 -6.0 -10.0 Quality of Perceived Perceived Perceived Clean Criminal Central 42 AAP Madan Lal 35.73 21 59 Aendance Issues Raised Issues Raised Performance Accessibility Least Corrupt Record Overall Score (Out of 10) (Out of 10) (Out of 27) (Out of 20) (Out of 6) (Out of 10) (Out of 5) (Out of 100) Central 54 AAP Amanatullah Khan 37.67 57 58 2016 9.24 4.99 10.54612.59 3.84 .782.5058.83 2017 8.47 4.83 9.66 11.52 3.89 6.09 0.58 53.38 2018 8.86 4.85 10.44811.19 3.02 .570.2455.39 Central 49 AAP Dinesh Mohaniya 37.84 54 57 2019 8.03 4.93 10.40811.17 2.95 .32-0.30 53.77 Narela 1 AAP Sharad Kumar 38.22 38 56 BOTTOM 5 MLAs IN ATTENDANCE Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 10) 2018 2019 West 32 AAP Naresh Balyan 0 35 60 AAP Devinder Kumar Najafgarh 36 4 49 24 Sehrawat Najafgarh 37 AAP Bhavna Gaur 4 10 9 South 47 AAP Prakash 4 51 55 Shahdara North 64 AAP Sarita Singh 4 56 44 56 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 57 TOP 5 MLAs IN QUALITY ISSUES RAISED BOTTOM 5 MLAs IN QUALITY ISSUES RAISED Assembly Overall Rank Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 27) 2018 2019 Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 27) 2018 2019 Rohini 13 BJP Vijender Kumar 17.63 16 8 City 21 AAP Asim Ahmed Khan 0 30 46 Shahdara North 69 BJP Jagdish Pradhan 17.20 2 2 Shahdara North 70 AAP Kapil Mishra 2.45 47 52 West 27 BJP Manjinder Singh Sirsa 16.90 8 10 Narela 1 AAP Sharad Kumar 3.20 38 56 Shahdara South 59 BJP Om Prakash Sharma 16.86 - 4 Central 42 AAP Madan Lal 3.89 21 59 Rohini 6 AAP Mohinder Goyal 16.31 1 1 South 46 AAP Kartar Singh Tanwar 3.95 32 49 TOP 5 MLAs IN ACCESIBILITY BOTTOM 5 MLAs IN ACCESIBILITY Assembly Overall Rank Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 6) 2018 2019 Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 6) 2018 2019 Civil Line 18 AAP Akhilesh Pati Tripathi 4.56 37 28 South 45 AAP Naresh Yadav 1.94 34 53 West 32 AAP Naresh Balyan 4.43 35 60 South 44 AAP Parmila Tokas 1.99 58 32 Karol Bagh 39 AAP Vijender Garg Vijay 4.14 14 18 Rohini 11 AAP Raghuvinder Shokeen 2.01 46 51 West 31 AAP Mahinder Yadav 4.06 55 54 Shahdara North 66 AAP Shri Dutt Sharma 2.01 27 22 Rohini 14 AAP Bandana Kumari 4.05 23 15 Rohini 7 AAP Ram Chander 2.12 - 20 58 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 59 TOP 6 MLAs IN PERCEIVED LEAST CORRUPT TOP 5 MLAs IN ISSUES RAISED Assembly Overall Rank Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 10) 2018 2019 Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 10) 2018 2019 Narela 1 AAP Sharad Kumar 10.00 38 56 Rohini 13 BJP Vijender Kumar 10 16 8 City 21 AAP Asim Ahmed Khan 9.88 30 46 Shahdara North 69 BJP Jagdish Pradhan 9.83 2 2 South 47 AAP Prakash 9.85 51 55 West 27 BJP Manjinder Singh Sirsa 9.66 8 10 Rohini 11 AAP Raghuvinder Shokeen 9.73 46 51 Shahdara South 59 BJP Om Prakash Sharma 9.49 - 4 Central 52 AAP Sahi Ram 9.73 53 47 Shahdara South 60 AAP S. K. Bagga 9.67 9 3 Civil Line 3 AAP Pankaj Kant Singhal 9.32 13 6 BOTTOM 5 MLAs IN PERCEIVED LEAST CORRUPT BOTTOM 6 MLAs IN ISSUES RAISED Assembly Overall Rank Assembly Overall Rank Constituency Political Score Constituency Political Score Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 10) 2018 2019 Zone No. Party MLAs Name (out of 10) 2018 2019 Rohini 10 AAP Sandeep Kumar 5.20 48 50 City 21 AAP Asim Ahmed Khan 0 30 46 Karol Bagh 24 AAP Hazari Lal Chauhan 0.16 45 35 South 50 AAP Saurabh Bharadwaj 5.21 20 21 Narela 1 AAP Sharad Kumar 0.33 38 56 Central 49 AAP Dinesh Mohaniya 6.38 54 57 South 46 AAP Kartar Singh Tanwar 0.33 32 49 Civil Line 5 AAP Ajesh Yadav 6.49 40 26 Central 54 AAP Amanatullah Khan 0.33 57 58 Central 42 AAP Madan Lal 7.04 21 59 Shahdara North 70 AAP Kapil Mishra 0.33 47 52 60 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 61 6 2 8 1 3 7 5 9 4 19 14 35 45 23 62 12 48 29 30 41 63 20 16 38 46 39 17 33 47 34 58 44 42 64 36 53 37 55 50 10 51 31 61 13 60 28 43 56 26 59 65 57 32 54 27 49 24 21 52 25 40 15 11 18 22 Rank Rank 1 6 8 3 9 5 32 16 78 37 41 51 19 63 98 34 41 15 29 16 65 37 54 40 88 61 25 73 27 75 86 28 37 44 32 22 92 38 85 26 56 88 33 98 52 87 118 128 109 160 189 108 127 433 104 226 185 220 168 105 123 126 190 475 106 Total Total - - 2 0 3 1 2 2 5 8 - - - 2 9 43 74 23 68 40 25 26 97 31 16 24 61 42 56 48 25 13 31 97 15 15 14 29 98 32 72 10 15 21 55 40 13 37 38 61 22 16 44 13 49 13 27 95 60 25 67 175 149 138 210 2019 2019 - - 1 9 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 - - - - - 0 5 6 6 4 7 6 7 31 31 27 15 12 10 23 11 20 17 21 92 32 13 77 13 33 19 15 20 28 13 25 32 27 22 19 11 12 30 17 10 30 21 26 89 19 2018 2018 - - 4 8 0 2 5 5 0 2 1 4 6 0 0 9 - - - - 6 0 4 2 0 0 7 5 8 4 10 11 23 49 19 34 13 10 15 23 81 20 15 15 10 34 13 21 24 24 14 10 22 32 20 16 17 21 10 31 35 14 24 16 98 2017 2017 - - - - - 4 9 4 1 7 2 9 7 5 5 2 0 5 - - 5 5 6 0 0 7 5 2 3 4 2 8 6 3 34 12 44 19 20 35 15 15 34 27 85 14 11 21 11 18 82 18 11 43 16 15 27 12 11 13 30 28 20 78 16 2016 2016 MLAs Name Adarsh Shastri Ajay Dutt Ajesh Yadav Akhilesh Pati Tripathi Alka Lamba Amanatullah Khan Anil Kumar Bajpai Asim Ahmed Khan Avtar Singh Bandana Kumari Bhavna Gaur Devinder Kumar Sehrawat Dinesh Mohaniya Fateh Singh Girish Soni Gulab Singh Hazari Lal Chauhan Jagdeep Singh Jagdish Pradhan Jarnail Singh (27) Jarnail Singh (29) Jitender Singh Tomar Kailash Gahlot Kapil Mishra Kartar Singh Tanwar Madan Lal Mahinder Yadav Manjinder Singh Sirsa Manoj Kumar Mohd. Ishraque Mohinder Goyal Narayan Dutt Sharma Naresh Balyan MLAs Name Naresh Yadav Nitin Tyagi Om Prakash Sharma Pankaj Kant Singhal Parmila Tokas Pawan Kumar Sharma Prakash Praveen Kumar Raghuvinder Shokeen Rajendra Pal Gautam Rajesh Gupta Rajesh Rishi Raju Dhingan Rakhi Birla Ram Chander Rituraj Govind S. K. Bagga Sahi Ram Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Jha Sarita Singh Saurabh Bharadwaj Sharad Kumar Shiv Charan Goel Shri Dutt Sharma Som Dutt Somnath Bharti Sukhvir Singh Ved Parkash Vijender Garg Vijay Vijender Kumar Vishesh Ravi Issues asked by Delhi MLA during 2016-2019 Party AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP Issues asked by Delhi MLA during 2016-2019 Party AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP 62 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 63 6 2 8 1 3 7 5 9 4 19 14 35 45 23 62 12 48 29 30 41 63 20 16 38 46 17 33 47 34 58 44 42 64 36 53 37 55 50 10 51 31 61 13 60 28 43 56 26 59 65 57 32 54 27 49 24 21 52 25 40 15 11 22 Rank Rank 69 94 91 85 96 66 96 95 93 83 80 67 90 94 97 65 98 95 79 95 81 86 89 84 96 80 83 94 87 92 92 62 94 95 71 91 92 90 74 88 79 97 94 92 96 69 91 88 72 79 68 84 91 89 95 96 96 90 93 94 97 100 100 Avg. Avg. (In %) (In %) - - - - - 61 92 89 94 90 67 97 94 87 86 53 58 75 92 97 61 97 94 94 92 92 75 94 78 77 84 89 92 78 47 87 94 69 94 86 58 74 72 97 84 83 69 86 92 75 71 52 86 84 81 89 94 97 84 87 94 100 100 % of % of Attendance Attendance - - - - - 19 33 32 34 28 24 30 34 27 31 19 21 27 33 35 22 35 34 29 33 33 27 29 28 24 26 32 33 28 17 27 29 25 34 36 31 21 23 26 30 26 30 25 31 36 33 27 22 16 31 26 25 32 29 35 26 27 34 Attend Attend 2019 2019 - - - - - 31 36 36 36 31 36 31 36 31 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 31 36 36 36 31 36 31 31 36 36 36 36 31 31 36 36 36 36 36 31 36 31 31 36 36 36 36 36 36 31 31 36 31 31 36 31 36 31 31 36 Max Max Session Session ------82 95 95 86 64 91 95 91 77 95 77 59 95 95 59 82 86 95 73 94 73 64 95 95 64 95 95 86 68 68 50 86 95 91 95 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % of % of Attendance Attendance ------18 21 21 19 22 14 20 21 20 17 21 17 22 22 22 13 22 21 21 13 14 19 21 16 16 22 16 22 22 14 22 21 21 22 22 14 21 22 22 22 21 22 22 19 15 15 11 19 21 20 22 22 21 22 21 22 Attend Attend 2018 2018 ------22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 17 22 22 22 17 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 Max Max Session Session ------41 35 41 53 88 82 82 65 94 94 83 88 94 88 76 88 94 82 94 94 94 65 71 82 88 94 88 82 88 88 76 94 88 65 94 82 88 94 94 94 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % of % of Attendance Attendance ------7 6 7 9 15 14 14 17 11 17 16 16 10 17 17 15 16 17 17 17 15 13 15 16 14 16 16 16 17 11 17 17 12 14 15 16 15 14 17 15 17 17 15 17 13 16 15 11 16 14 17 15 16 17 16 16 16 Attend Attend 2017 2017 ------17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 12 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Max Max Session Session ------85 96 73 96 69 96 92 92 96 96 96 92 96 92 96 92 92 92 88 92 85 81 92 92 73 96 81 88 92 96 69 96 96 96 92 92 88 88 92 92 96 96 81 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % of % of Attendance Attendance ------22 26 25 19 25 18 25 26 24 24 25 25 25 24 25 24 25 24 24 24 26 23 26 24 22 26 21 24 24 19 25 21 23 24 25 18 26 26 25 25 25 24 26 24 23 23 24 24 26 25 26 25 21 24 26 26 Attend Attend 2016 2016 ------26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 Max Max Session Session Name of MLA Adarsh Shastri Ajay Dutt Ajesh Yadav Akhilesh Tripathi Pati Alka Lamba Amanatullah Khan Bajpai Anil Kumar Asim Ahmed Khan Avtar Singh Bandana Kumari Bhavna Gaur Sehrawat Devinder Kumar Dinesh Mohaniya Singh Fateh Girish Soni Gulab Singh Hazari Lal Chauhan Jagdish Pradhan Jarnail Singh(27) Jarnail Singh(29) Jitender Singh Tomar Kailash Gahlot Kapil Mishra Kartar Singh Tanwar Madan Lal Mahinder Yadav Manjinder Singh Sirsa Manoj Kumar Ishraque Mohd. Mohinder Goyal Narayan Dutt Sharma Naresh Balyan Name of MLA Naresh Yadav Nitin Tyagi Om Prakash Sharma Kant Singhal Pankaj Tokas Parmila Sharma Kumar Pawan Prakash Praveen Kumar Raghuvinder Shokeen Gautam Rajendra Pal Rajesh Gupta Rajesh Rishi Raju Dhingan Rakhi Birla Ram Chander Rituraj Govind Bagga K. S. Sahi Ram Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Jha Sarita Singh Saurabh Bharadwaj Sharad Kumar Shiv Charan Goel Shri Dutt Sharma Som Dutt Somnath Bharti Sukhvir Singh Parkash Ved Vijender Garg Vijay Vishesh Ravi Attendance (in%) of Delhi MLA during 2016-2019 Attendance (in%) of Delhi MLA during 2016-2019 64 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 65 6 2 8 1 3 7 5 9 4 19 14 35 45 23 62 12 48 29 30 41 63 20 16 37 46 38 17 33 47 34 58 44 42 64 40 53 36 55 50 10 51 31 61 13 60 28 43 56 26 59 65 57 32 54 27 49 24 21 52 25 39 15 11 18 22 Avg. Avg. Rank Rank 54 58 61 63 55 55 58 66 60 57 58 60 48 55 58 55 57 53 48 62 60 57 64 46 57 58 51 65 57 60 62 52 45 59 62 61 57 63 56 50 68 64 55 51 63 56 54 57 46 59 57 55 51 58 59 60 63 51 59 63 55 59 60 60 58 Avg. PP Avg. PP 55 63 37 55 69 28 59 26 46 44 70 36 33 54 57 53 35 63 79 54 62 43 40 30 33 42 25 76 52 26 74 43 41 46 61 70 68 47 55 34 54 28 74 67 55 40 43 51 36 69 37 34 56 34 49 42 47 60 44 73 54 72 61 77 57 Avg.AP Avg.AP - - - - - 9 5 2 1 4 6 3 8 7 16 12 26 28 33 58 11 46 42 15 24 57 19 29 35 25 27 34 52 49 59 54 10 13 40 45 60 53 39 32 14 55 36 51 23 31 43 20 37 47 50 41 44 21 56 38 22 48 17 30 18 Rank Rank - - - - - 50 63 60 53 54 58 64 56 55 57 53 63 42 59 62 52 59 52 44 47 65 42 51 43 39 65 59 56 64 48 41 55 59 57 62 61 51 57 66 56 54 64 58 57 57 61 58 55 44 55 46 56 64 49 59 59 54 58 61 54 PP PP 2019 2019 - - - - - 54 73 44 70 55 25 51 21 30 48 61 44 37 49 68 54 36 66 79 63 51 27 22 32 36 74 51 32 75 38 23 40 53 69 75 58 69 25 34 39 67 55 33 51 55 69 50 36 54 26 60 25 33 49 37 74 64 46 80 69 AP AP ------4 2 8 1 7 5 3 9 6 11 40 37 26 57 18 30 25 23 10 49 54 22 15 43 45 42 17 50 47 32 21 55 28 44 41 35 34 13 58 31 51 46 12 36 52 53 48 33 56 20 38 27 39 19 29 14 16 24 Rank Rank ------50 55 54 70 57 49 53 76 53 57 58 57 35 48 49 52 43 44 45 65 53 49 63 64 49 65 53 49 59 53 44 54 66 47 59 59 43 70 58 53 66 52 37 57 51 55 51 59 71 53 61 51 62 64 58 46 56 52 PP PP 2018 2018 ------68 72 30 45 67 24 56 37 50 44 67 17 35 54 62 48 30 61 80 74 24 33 35 54 22 78 55 28 79 37 49 58 62 71 21 55 37 66 42 76 69 43 37 68 41 32 51 23 44 55 70 59 48 71 62 68 79 57 AP AP ------2 3 1 7 9 5 4 8 6 38 27 35 34 17 54 11 46 26 33 51 57 20 22 47 30 28 21 40 24 37 36 23 56 43 53 15 49 44 25 32 48 55 12 41 42 58 59 19 45 14 39 29 10 52 16 31 18 13 50 Rank Rank ------59 46 55 64 50 46 53 66 68 56 58 57 43 52 58 67 64 60 50 58 63 52 64 51 61 64 58 57 65 51 43 63 56 55 54 52 39 67 64 55 46 59 53 41 58 56 44 55 53 62 63 57 50 62 58 58 67 61 61 PP PP 2017 2017 ------29 47 34 64 77 36 62 21 39 41 76 20 21 52 48 37 34 69 78 50 57 54 30 36 43 17 48 21 76 55 41 44 65 61 68 52 53 63 17 73 61 35 34 17 62 17 65 41 57 51 35 72 43 75 56 70 61 79 38 AP AP ------6 7 2 9 3 4 8 5 1 14 13 27 55 10 49 16 22 39 15 29 23 48 40 20 41 31 46 37 53 50 44 33 32 38 47 45 56 17 57 18 21 30 54 51 58 28 25 42 34 26 24 43 35 52 11 19 36 12 Rank Rank ------55 67 73 64 57 69 64 63 64 64 72 63 64 50 63 56 52 65 67 64 63 65 54 60 77 58 59 53 64 69 66 65 80 63 59 69 77 54 50 62 61 54 49 59 61 65 65 65 69 63 47 66 65 51 61 67 62 64 PP PP 2016 2016 ------70 59 40 42 77 29 68 66 76 62 38 62 49 74 39 56 80 59 52 49 39 39 26 53 21 67 42 49 43 65 70 66 41 43 21 54 13 75 64 61 49 43 34 74 39 53 48 37 39 51 59 49 72 35 74 69 70 63 AP AP Name of MLA Adarsh Shastri Ajay Dutt Ajesh Yadav Akhilesh Pati Tripathi Alka Lamba Amanatullah Khan Anil Kumar Bajpai Asim Ahmed Khan Avtar Singh Bandana Kumari Bhavna Gaur Devinder Kumar Sehrawat Dinesh Mohaniya Fateh Singh Girish Soni Gulab Singh Hazari Lal Chauhan Jagdeep Singh Jagdish Pradhan Jarnail Singh (27) Jarnail Singh (29) Jitender Singh Tomar Kailash Gahlot Kapil Mishra Kartar Singh Tanwar Madan Lal Mahinder Yadav Manjinder Singh Sirsa Manoj Kumar Mohd. Ishraque Mohinder Goyal Narayan Dutt Sharma Name of MLA Naresh Balyan Naresh Yadav Nitin Tyagi Om Prakash Sharma Pankaj Kant Singhal Parmila Tokas Pawan Kumar Sharma Prakash Praveen Kumar Raghuvinder Shokeen Rajendra Pal Gautam Rajesh Gupta Rajesh Rishi Raju Dhingan Rakhi Birla Ram Chander Rituraj Govind S. K. Bagga Sahi Ram Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Jha Sarita Singh Saurabh Bharadwaj Sharad Kumar Shiv Charan Goel Shri Dutt Sharma Som Dutt Somnath Bharti Sukhvir Singh Ved Parkash Vijender Garg Vijay Vijender Kumar Vishesh Ravi Comparison (figures in %) of Actual Performance (Deliberation = Attendance + No. issues Comparison (figures of Public Services) Performer (Perception Quality of issues) with Perceived in %) of Actual Performance (Deliberation = Attendance + No. issues Comparison (figures of Public Services) Performer (Perception Quality of issues) with Perceived 66 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 67 3 7 5 9 4 6 2 8 1 55 50 10 51 31 61 13 60 28 43 56 26 59 65 57 32 54 27 49 24 21 52 25 40 15 11 18 22 19 14 35 45 23 62 12 48 29 30 41 63 20 16 38 46 39 17 33 47 34 58 44 42 64 36 53 37 Rank Rank Average Average Average Average 47.44 48.78 64.79 70.91 67.51 48.61 55.10 42.05 64.27 42.12 69.17 64.80 58.30 51.65 47.04 58.91 42.33 69.81 37.96 43.24 54.96 47.48 58.52 48.83 59.14 60.26 47.95 59.08 52.46 63.52 64.58 61.70 60.18 61.06 63.83 54.03 50.77 59.93 40.63 64.30 49.85 57.25 57.14 68.89 52.37 39.11 61.02 62.57 53.18 50.74 52.81 72.02 61.92 54.93 50.74 54.43 42.63 50.93 52.07 38.41 65.85 53.76 47.51 73.26 53.40 Score Score Average Average Average Average - - - - - 4 6 3 8 7 9 5 2 1 60 53 39 32 14 55 36 51 23 31 43 20 37 47 50 41 44 21 56 38 22 48 17 30 18 16 12 26 28 33 58 11 46 42 15 24 57 19 29 35 25 27 34 52 49 59 54 10 13 40 45 Rank Rank 2019 2019 - - - - - 33.31 40.54 51.61 71.07 69.16 52.79 60.43 39.07 52.40 42.03 57.87 53.85 48.74 58.91 52.26 71.88 45.75 42.51 48.86 47.35 58.31 38.22 52.13 58.14 44.99 59.26 54.58 59.15 64.87 69.14 59.32 61.21 55.85 55.37 52.74 37.67 61.79 47.19 48.81 59.73 64.37 57.17 37.84 58.96 70.07 54.73 52.58 56.02 72.13 55.76 52.66 40.72 44.95 35.73 40.29 61.89 61.15 49.05 73.83 47.27 Score Score ------7 5 3 9 6 4 2 8 1 35 34 13 58 31 51 46 12 36 52 53 48 33 56 20 38 27 39 19 29 14 16 24 11 40 37 26 57 18 30 25 23 10 49 54 22 15 43 45 42 17 50 47 32 21 55 28 44 41 Rank Rank 2018 2018 ------53.05 53.39 70.05 67.06 33.90 55.36 39.43 71.20 45.30 73.02 67.07 52.99 39.29 69.11 38.53 43.98 53.46 34.77 60.94 52.11 71.17 57.34 50.56 60.95 55.62 66.64 64.27 58.29 68.10 71.79 49.85 52.25 57.69 34.26 61.57 55.38 57.75 59.47 68.53 43.52 35.88 59.68 64.47 47.40 46.16 47.51 73.56 63.13 43.39 44.55 55.16 60.46 35.70 69.82 56.31 47.18 74.63 48.79 Score Score ------7 9 5 4 8 6 2 3 1 49 44 25 32 48 55 12 41 42 58 59 19 45 14 39 29 10 52 16 31 18 13 50 38 27 35 34 17 54 11 46 26 33 51 57 20 22 47 30 28 21 40 24 37 36 23 56 43 53 15 Rank Rank 2017 2017 ------46.20 47.20 66.22 64.13 56.04 52.24 46.68 67.32 39.18 67.87 62.44 47.81 47.28 29.10 65.41 27.26 58.74 47.07 62.05 49.37 53.86 63.86 43.57 60.54 52.40 58.96 66.75 62.16 45.78 49.67 55.13 51.63 51.97 60.53 39.22 63.45 46.99 55.81 52.22 72.38 44.85 29.17 58.63 58.13 46.95 52.82 54.36 70.52 58.18 47.87 56.16 51.49 51.55 56.89 30.60 47.26 41.16 75.04 61.10 Score Score ------3 4 8 5 1 6 7 2 9 32 38 47 45 56 17 57 18 21 30 54 51 58 28 25 42 34 26 24 43 35 52 11 19 36 12 14 13 27 55 10 49 16 22 39 15 29 23 48 40 20 41 31 46 37 53 50 44 33 Rank Rank 2016 2016 ------57.19 53.97 71.30 70.75 69.70 51.71 52.39 43.04 66.18 41.96 70.47 65.86 64.48 57.59 47.04 48.68 72.86 40.29 58.79 60.74 52.80 55.62 59.42 61.70 52.70 55.57 47.22 68.08 65.79 55.51 67.52 67.14 67.20 58.79 43.47 68.76 51.38 70.40 66.61 70.27 63.92 53.53 66.79 57.63 63.64 51.41 53.35 71.87 65.66 52.94 57.37 52.06 55.22 47.06 50.31 52.65 69.54 56.46 Score Score MLAs Name Naresh Balyan Naresh Yadav Nitin Tyagi Om Prakash Sharma Kant Singhal Pankaj Tokas Parmila Sharma Kumar Pawan Prakash Praveen Kumar Raghuvinder Shokeen Gautam Rajendra Pal Rajesh Gupta Rajesh Rishi Raju Dhingan Rakhi Birla Ram Chander Rituraj Govind Bagga K. S. Sahi Ram Sandeep Kumar Sanjeev Jha Sarita Singh Saurabh Bharadwaj Sharad Kumar Shiv Charan Goel Shri Dutt Sharma Som Dutt Somnath Bharti Sukhvir Singh Parkash Ved Vijender Garg Vijay Vijender Kumar Vishesh Ravi MLAs Name Adarsh Shastri Ajay Dutt Ajesh Yadav Akhilesh Tripathi Pati Alka Lamba Amanatullah Khan Bajpai Anil Kumar Asim Ahmed Khan Avtar Singh Bandana Kumari Bhavna Gaur Sehrawat Devinder Kumar Dinesh Mohaniya Singh Fateh Girish Soni Gulab Singh Hazari Lal Chauhan Jagdeep Singh Jagdish Pradhan Jarnail Singh (27) Jarnail Singh (29) Jitender Singh Tomar Kailash Gahlot Kapil Mishra Kartar Singh Tanwar Madan Lal Mahinder Yadav Manjinder Singh Sirsa Manoj Kumar Ishraque Mohd. Mohinder Goyal Narayan Dutt Sharma Party AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP Party AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP Movement of Rank & Score (in %) Movement of Rank & Score Movement of Rank & Score (in %) Movement of Rank & Score 68 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 69 DETAILED SCORE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 2018 AND 2019 Perception Number of Quality of of Public Perceived Perceived Broad Attendance Issues Raised Issues Raised Criminal Record IT+Edu. Services Accesibility Least Corrupt Measures (Out of 10) (Out of 10) (Out of 27) (Out of 5) (Out of 3) (Out of 20) (Out of 6) (Out of 10) (Out of 4) 2018 2019 Party MLAs Name 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 Score Rank Score Rank Reasons Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Adarsh Shastri 8 6 8.77 6.61 15.31 12.62 5 5 3 3 10.44 9.90 1.99 2.22 9.52 8.20 2.67 2.79 68.10 11 59.32 16 of issues; Perceived Performance AAP Ajay Dutt 10 10 8.77 8.64 15.21 15.65 5 -5 3 3 11.20 12.52 2.50 2.61 10.00 7.88 2.52 2.85 71.79 4 61.21 12 New FIR registered AAP Ajesh Yadav 10 8 0.35 3.89 3.97 8.95 5 5 3 3 11.26 11.96 3.09 2.94 8.07 6.49 2.62 2.83 49.85 40 55.85 26 No. of issues; Quality of issues Attendance; No. of issues; AAP Akhilesh Pati Tripathi 8 10 3.50 8.30 9.84 14.82 -5 -10 3 3 14.03 10.99 4.33 4.56 9.14 8.23 2.80 2.70 52.25 37 55.37 28 Quality of issues Attendance; No. of issues; AAP Alka Lamba 10 8 7.89 6.10 13.39 11.82 -5 -5 3 3 11.38 10.99 3.31 2.94 8.15 9.21 2.68 3.04 57.69 26 52.74 33 Quality of issues AAP Amanatullah Khan 6 6 1.57 0.33 3.62 5.45 -7 -5 3 3 9.96 11.33 2.73 2.48 10.00 9.40 2.66 2.80 34.26 57 37.67 58 AAP Anil Kumar Bajpai 10 10 5.26 4.23 11.10 9.55 5 5 3 3 10.73 12.98 2.26 2.43 8.70 8.96 2.44 2.56 61.57 18 61.79 11 Perceived Performance No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Asim Ahmed Khan 10 10 0.35 0.00 6.97 0.00 5 5 3 3 15.24 11.02 2.64 2.75 7.17 9.88 2.23 3.18 55.38 30 47.19 46 Perceived Performance Attendance; No. of issues; AAP Avtar Singh 10 8 4.38 1.01 9.16 4.86 5 5 2 2 10.96 11.02 2.42 2.30 8.25 9.61 2.70 2.58 57.75 25 48.81 42 Quality of issues AAP Bandana Kumari 8 8 3.68 4.74 8.87 9.90 5 5 3 3 11.73 11.33 4.44 4.05 8.88 7.88 2.91 2.85 59.47 23 59.73 15 No. of issues; Quality of issues AAP Bhavna Gaur 10 4 7.36 8.98 14.11 15.70 5 5 3 3 11.82 10.86 2.36 2.59 8.76 8.45 2.69 2.57 68.53 10 64.37 9 AAP Devinder Kumar Sehrawat 8 4 0.00 5.25 0.00 11.38 5 5 3 3 11.63 12.42 2.64 2.60 8.43 8.10 2.64 2.57 43.52 49 57.17 24 No. of issues; Quality of issues AAP Dinesh Mohaniya 10 6 1.57 3.22 4.87 8.07 -5 -5 3 3 7.39 8.92 2.50 2.95 7.85 6.38 1.91 2.42 35.88 54 37.84 57 AAP Fateh Singh 10 10 4.03 4.06 11.12 9.04 5 5 3 3 9.84 11.81 2.55 2.58 8.78 7.59 2.37 2.93 59.68 22 58.96 19 No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Girish Soni 10 10 6.49 7.79 12.64 14.15 5 5 3 3 10.16 12.19 3.72 3.50 7.69 8.32 2.55 2.62 64.47 15 70.07 5 Perceived Performance Attendance; No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Gulab Singh 4 6 5.61 6.44 12.84 13.04 -5 0 3 3 10.44 10.61 2.83 2.84 8.63 7.30 2.68 2.76 47.40 43 54.73 29 Criminal case withdrawn Quality of issues; AAP Hazari Lal Chauhan 10 10 0.35 0.16 3.97 6.72 5 5 2 2 8.86 12.13 3.53 3.31 7.99 7.99 2.15 2.65 46.16 45 52.58 35 Perceived Performance No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Jagdeep Singh 10 10 6.84 7.45 11.85 13.65 -10 -5 3 3 8.83 10.41 2.82 2.95 8.85 7.93 2.95 2.83 47.51 42 56.02 25 Criminal case withdrawn BJP Jagdish Pradhan 10 10 10.00 9.83 17.75 17.20 5 5 3 3 9.29 9.13 4.02 3.88 8.10 8.08 2.73 2.40 73.56 2 72.13 2 No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Jarnail Singh 10 10 9.12 6.94 15.80 12.83 -5 -5 3 3 12.87 9.62 3.15 3.49 8.43 9.34 2.61 2.75 63.13 17 55.76 27 Perceived Performance Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Jitender Singh Tomar 4 10 0.35 4.23 6.97 9.51 0 -5 3 3 11.36 12.87 3.71 3.62 8.86 8.65 2.97 3.15 43.39 50 52.66 34 of issues; Perceived Performance 70 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 71 DETAILED SCORE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 2018 AND 2019 Perception Number of Quality of of Public Perceived Perceived Broad Attendance Issues Raised Issues Raised Criminal Record IT+Edu. Services Accesibility Least Corrupt Measures (Out of 10) (Out of 10) (Out of 27) (Out of 5) (Out of 3) (Out of 20) (Out of 6) (Out of 10) (Out of 4) 2018 2019 Party MLAs Name 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 Score Rank Score Rank Reasons Quality of issues; AAP Kapil Mishra 8 10 0.35 0.33 6.97 2.45 0 0 3 3 10.14 9.13 3.20 2.92 7.85 8.19 2.81 2.66 44.55 47 40.72 52 Perceived Performance Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Kartar Singh Tanwar 8 6 1.92 0.33 6.47 3.95 5 5 3 3 12.49 10.09 2.91 2.83 9.83 8.76 2.78 2.75 55.16 32 44.95 49 of issues; Perceived Performance No. of issues; Quality of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Madan Lal 10 10 4.73 1.18 10.81 3.89 5 -5 3 3 12.69 8.43 2.10 2.50 6.72 7.04 2.39 2.91 60.46 21 35.73 59 New FIR registered AAP Mahinder Yadav 6 8 0.35 1.86 3.97 6.90 -5 -5 3 3 10.04 8.09 4.16 4.06 8.78 8.70 2.62 2.68 35.70 55 40.29 54 BJP Manjinder Singh Sirsa 10 8 9.64 9.66 16.79 16.90 0 -5 3 3 12.81 12.89 2.96 2.65 8.61 8.03 2.52 2.67 69.82 8 61.89 10 No. of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Manoj Kumar 10 8 4.73 5.25 11.23 10.80 0 5 3 3 10.81 12.32 3.07 3.45 8.20 7.39 2.46 2.88 56.31 28 61.15 13 Criminal case withdrawn AAP Mohd. Ishraque 6 8 0.35 1.35 6.97 5.51 5 5 2 2 10.17 11.44 3.19 2.83 8.66 7.64 2.48 2.84 47.18 44 49.05 40 AAP Mohinder Goyal 10 10 9.47 8.98 17.47 16.31 5 5 3 3 12.08 12.66 3.05 3.17 8.19 8.11 2.65 2.90 74.63 1 73.83 1 AAP Narayan Dutt Sharma 10 8 1.92 2.71 5.34 7.36 0 0 3 3 10.86 10.14 3.88 3.37 8.84 7.77 2.50 2.56 48.79 41 47.27 45 Attendance; No. of issues; Quality of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Naresh Balyan 6 0 5.96 2.71 11.15 8.03 0 -5 2 2 9.04 8.58 4.52 4.43 8.90 8.28 2.82 2.62 53.05 35 33.31 60 New FIR registered Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Naresh Yadav 10 8 5.26 2.54 12.20 8.25 -5 -7 3 3 11.09 10.95 2.16 1.94 9.54 7.87 2.47 2.97 53.39 34 40.54 53 of issues; Perceived Performance No. of issues; Quality of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Nitin Tyagi 10 10 6.49 5.08 12.84 9.84 5 -5 3 3 13.29 11.66 4.10 3.85 9.03 7.82 2.81 2.78 70.05 7 51.61 39 New FIR registered BJP Om Prakash Sharma 6 9.49 16.86 5 3 11.34 3.96 8.97 2.90 - - 71.07 4 No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Pankaj Kant Singhal 10 10 8.24 9.32 15.28 16.08 5 0 3 3 9.95 12.38 2.90 2.93 6.48 9.06 2.84 2.94 67.06 13 69.16 6 Perceived Performance AAP Parmila Tokas 10 10 0.00 5.59 0.00 11.89 -5 -5 3 3 11.92 12.15 1.88 1.99 8.06 7.97 2.35 2.56 33.90 58 52.79 32 No. of issues; Quality of issues AAP Pawan Kumar Sharma 10 8 4.73 8.47 11.12 15.85 -2 -2 3 3 12.22 10.13 2.81 2.79 8.12 8.46 2.60 2.71 55.36 31 60.43 14 No. of issues; Quality of issues AAP Prakash 6 4 2.45 1.69 8.91 5.93 -5 -5 3 3 8.69 11.46 3.25 3.16 7.76 9.85 2.40 3.02 39.43 51 39.07 55 Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Praveen Kumar 10 6 7.54 2.71 13.26 7.46 5 5 2 2 14.30 12.93 3.18 2.79 9.67 8.30 2.69 2.59 71.20 5 52.40 36 of issues; Perceived Performance AAP Raghuvinder Shokeen 10 6 2.63 3.55 7.22 8.94 -5 -7 3 3 11.82 11.13 2.23 2.01 8.78 9.73 2.37 2.57 45.30 46 42.03 51 Attendance 72 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 73 DETAILED SCORE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 2018 AND 2019 Perception Number of Quality of of Public Perceived Perceived Broad Attendance Issues Raised Issues Raised Criminal Record IT+Edu. Services Accesibility Least Corrupt Measures (Out of 10) (Out of 10) (Out of 27) (Out of 5) (Out of 3) (Out of 20) (Out of 6) (Out of 10) (Out of 4) 2018 2019 Party MLAs Name 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 Score Rank Score Rank Reasons No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Rajesh Gupta 10 10 9.12 7.28 16.37 14.01 5 -5 3 3 10.79 10.95 2.71 2.56 10.00 9.47 2.37 2.70 73.02 3 57.87 23 New FIR registered Attendance; No. of issues; Quality of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Rajesh Rishi 10 8 7.89 6.10 14.32 11.87 0 -5 3 3 13.27 12.73 3.43 3.34 9.03 8.28 2.77 2.85 67.07 12 53.85 31 Chargesheet filed Attendance; No. of issues; AAP Raju Dhingan 10 8 2.63 1.86 7.55 5.59 5 5 1 1 10.78 11.71 2.92 2.76 7.83 7.64 2.63 2.74 52.99 36 48.74 43 Quality of issues AAP Ram Chander 6 5.76 12.03 5 2 11.62 2.12 8.54 2.90 - - 58.91 20 No. of issues; Quality of issues; Perceived Performance; AAP Rituraj Govind 10 8 1.92 5.93 5.34 11.72 -5 -5 3 3 7.97 11.55 4.16 4.04 7.52 7.67 2.41 2.74 39.29 52 52.26 37 Chargesheet filed AAP S. K. Bagga 10 10 7.19 7.79 14.96 14.72 5 5 3 3 11.81 12.53 2.78 2.53 8.40 9.67 2.52 3.05 69.11 9 71.88 3 Perceived Performance Attendance; Quality of issues; AAP Sahi Ram 8 10 3.15 3.72 8.32 9.73 -10 -10 3 3 10.32 11.81 3.17 2.91 7.73 9.73 2.92 2.57 38.53 53 45.75 47 Perceived Performance AAP Sandeep Kumar 6 6 2.63 3.22 6.55 7.47 0 0 2 2 11.23 11.31 2.43 2.56 8.08 5.20 2.86 2.63 43.98 48 42.51 50 AAP Sanjeev Jha 6 6 5.96 6.77 12.10 12.82 0 -5 3 3 10.18 9.21 2.16 2.34 8.77 8.49 2.62 2.79 53.46 33 48.86 41 Chargesheet filed Attendance; Criminal case AAP Sarita Singh 0 4 3.15 1.86 7.47 6.36 -5 5 2 2 11.93 10.96 3.37 3.09 7.80 8.92 2.31 2.79 34.77 56 47.35 44 withdrawn AAP Saurabh Bharadwaj 8 8 4.03 7.11 8.58 12.89 5 5 3 3 14.21 9.27 2.92 2.46 9.25 5.21 2.90 2.46 60.94 20 58.31 21 Attendance; No. of issues; AAP Sharad Kumar 10 8 4.38 0.33 11.29 3.20 -5 -5 3 3 10.89 11.29 3.18 2.84 8.98 10.00 2.79 2.64 52.11 38 38.22 56 Quality of issues Attendance; No. of issues; Quality AAP Shiv Charan Goel 10 8 8.42 1.86 14.60 5.78 5 5 3 3 12.26 12.58 2.92 2.55 8.78 8.01 2.64 2.74 71.17 6 52.13 38 of issues; Perceived Performance Criminal case withdrawn; AAP Shri Dutt Sharma 10 8 5.61 4.91 11.96 10.11 0 5 3 3 10.41 10.35 1.84 2.01 9.26 9.32 2.41 2.53 57.34 27 58.14 22 Perceived Performance AAP Som Dutt 10 10 3.68 1.52 9.07 5.89 -5 -5 3 3 12.27 11.81 3.09 3.07 9.25 9.42 2.68 3.04 50.56 39 44.99 48 No. of issues; Quality of issues AAP Somnath Bharti 10 10 8.42 8.81 14.72 15.83 -7 -7 3 3 13.57 12.00 2.67 2.39 9.64 8.37 2.89 2.90 60.95 19 59.26 17 AAP Sukhvir Singh 10 8 6.84 7.62 12.31 14.66 -5 -5 3 3 11.87 10.80 2.34 2.56 8.85 7.55 2.64 2.65 55.62 29 54.58 30 AAP Vijender Garg Vijay 10 8 7.71 4.23 14.33 9.17 5 5 3 3 9.60 11.63 4.10 4.14 7.39 8.52 2.17 2.50 66.64 14 59.15 18 BJP Vijender Kumar 10 10 9.82 10.00 17.31 17.63 -5 -5 3 3 11.24 12.13 2.70 2.42 9.24 8.86 2.75 2.59 64.27 16 64.87 8 Other MLA movement No. of issues; Quality of issues; AAP Vishesh Ravi 10 10 5.96 8.13 10.97 14.18 0 5 3 3 10.51 11.00 3.38 3.18 8.87 8.29 2.69 2.90 58.29 24 69.14 7 Criminal case withdrawn; 74 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 75 0 2 4 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 4 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 8 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3* December 2018 December 2018 Total cases as on Total cases as on Total 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 0 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 10 New FIR / New FIR / Chrgesheet From RTI Chrgesheet From RTI 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 Old FIR / Old FIR / Chrgesheet From RTI Chrgesheet From RTI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 From Affidavit From Affidavit FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP Party Party Raghuvinder Shokeen Prakash Manoj Kumar Pankaj Kant Singhal Pankaj Jarnail Singh Jagdeep Singh Sharma Kumar Pawan Gulab Singh Pramila Tokas Nitin Tyagi Dinesh Mohniya Amanatullah Khan Naresh Yadav Ajay Dutt Naresh Balyan Alka Lamba Madan Lal MLAs Name Akhilesh Tripathi Pati MLAs Name Mahender Yadav * Note: One MLA (Mr. Prakash) has been convicted in one of the case from sessions court and he challenged same judgement High Court. One MLA (Mr. * Note: 11 56 47 29 3 4 28 44 34 58 49 54 45 48 32 20 Constituncy Constituncy No. 18 Constituncy No. 31 42 Number of FIR/Chargesheet as per (2014) affidavit and RTI in subsequent years Number of FIR/Chargesheet as per (2014) affidavit and RTI in subsequent years 76 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 77 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 2 3 2 1 0 5 0 5 December 2018 December 2018 Total cases as on Total cases as on Total 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 3 1 1 0 4 4 New FIR / New FIR / Chrgesheet From RTI Chrgesheet From RTI 2 2 2 Old FIR / Old FIR / Chrgesheet From RTI Chrgesheet From RTI 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 From Affidavit From Affidavit FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR FIR Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet Charge sheet BJP BJP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP AAP Party Party Som Dutt Shri Dutt Sharma Kapil Mishra Sharad Kumar Sandeep Kumar Sarita Singh Manjinder Singh Sirsa Sanjeev Jha Narayan Dutt Sahi Ram Jitender Singh Tomar Rajesh Gupta Vishesh Ravi Rajesh Rishi Vijender Kumar Rituraj Govind Sukhvir Singh MLAs Name Rakhi Birla MLAs Name Somnath Bharti 19 66 1 64 2 52 17 30 9 8 Constituncy Constituncy No. 12 Constituncy No. 43 70 10 27 53 16 23 13 Number of FIR/Chargesheet as per (2014) affidavit and RTI in subsequent years Number of FIR/Chargesheet as per (2014) affidavit and RTI in subsequent years 78 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 79 3. efJeOee³ekeÀesb kesÀ efveJee&®eve #es$e ceW ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeDeesb/celeeW mes peg›s ceeHeob[, pewmes efkeÀ GvekeÀer peeiejÀkeÀlee, keÀe³e&He´Ceeueer keÀecekeÀepe kesÀ He´efle meblegef<ì Deewj GvekesÀ keÀejCe peerJevemlej ceW megOeej~ cetu³eebkeÀve kesÀ #es$eeW keÀes efveOee&efjle keÀjves kesÀ yeeo Gvemes peg›er peevekeÀejer De®íer lejerkesÀ mes efceueves kesÀ efueS RTI 1. cewefì^keÌme - ÞesCeer ceehekeÀ Gef®ele keÀe³e&he´Ceeueer keÀe ®e³eve keÀjvee peªjer Lee~ Thej kesÀ henues oes (1 Deewj 2) cegÎeW keÀer peevekeÀejer kesÀ lenle Deewj mene³ekeÀ DevegmebOeeve mes neefmeue keÀer ieF&~ efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀer ÞesCeer le³e keÀjves kesÀ efueS kegÀue 100 DebkeÀesb ceW mes 60… Yeej JeemleefJekeÀ ceeheob[eW leLee leL³eeW keÀes efo³ee ie³ee~ leermejs cegÎs kesÀ efueS efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ he´pee ves efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ keÀecekeÀepe keÀes ceeheves keÀe cewefì^keÌme lew³eej efkeÀ³ee nw, efpemes efJekeÀefmele keÀjves kesÀ efueS efveJee&®eve #es$eeW ceW he´eLeefcekeÀ meJex#eCe efkeÀ³ee ie³ee~ efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ keÀece kesÀ He´efle meeOeejCe veeieefjkeÀeW keÀer vepej Meemeve-efJeefOe, jepekeÀer³e efJe%eeve, yeepeej DevegmebOeeve, he$ekeÀeefjlee Fve #es$eeW kesÀ efJeMes 80 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 81 ÞesCeer ceehekeÀ ÞesCeer ceehekeÀ ¬eÀ. met®ekeÀ G®®elece efìhheefCe³eeB ¬eÀ. met®ekeÀ G®®elece efìhheefCe³eeB ye Gþe³es cegÎeW keÀer mebK³ee(*) 10 mecetn he´efleMele ÞesCeer kesÀ Devegmeej~ G®®elece 3 ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeSb efouueer Menj kesÀ efJeefYeVe efveJee&®eve #es$eeW ceW DebkeÀ 10 Deewj Gmeer kesÀ Devegmeej v³etvelece DebkeÀ 0 27,121 ueesieeW kesÀ SkeÀ pevecele meJex#eCe kesÀ DeeOeej hej keÀ Gþe³es cegÎeW keÀe cenlJe(*) 27 Gþe³es cegÎeW keÀe cenlJe Fme DeeOeej hej le³e efkeÀ³ee nQ De meeJe&peefvekeÀ mesJeeDeeW keÀes ueskeÀj 20 meeJe&peefvekeÀ mesJeeDeeW kesÀ efueS DebkeÀ efkeÀ ³en cegÎs keWÀê met®eer kesÀ nQ ³ee jep³e met®eer kesÀ nQ ³ee OeejCeeSb mLeeefvekeÀ Meemeve keÀer met®eer mes nQ ³ee efHeÀj keWÀê/jep³e/ veiej efveiece FvekesÀ meeceeef³ekeÀ met®eer kesÀ nQ~ ye peeieªkeÀlee Deewj hengB®e 6 ueesieeW ceW efJeOee³ekeÀ Deewj GvekesÀ jepekeÀer³e he#e kesÀ yeejs kegÀue hewceeves hej efo³es Yeej Fme lejn: keWÀê kesÀ efueS ceW peeieªkeÀlee Deewj menpe hengB®e kesÀ efueS DebkeÀ 3; jep³e kesÀ efueS 13; efouueer veiej efveiece kesÀ keÀ Ye´äe®eej met®ekeÀebkeÀ 10 efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ Ye´äe®eej keÀes ueskeÀj ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeDeeW efueS 4 Deewj keWÀê/jep³e/veiej efveiece kesÀ efueS 7~ kesÀ efueS DebkeÀ [ kegÀue mLeeefvekeÀ #es$e efJekeÀeme 5 Jele&ceeve Deee|LekeÀ Je 82 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 83 2. MeheLe-he$e kesÀ Devegmeej Deleerle keÀer peevekeÀejer kesÀ ceeheob[ 3. efJeOeevemeYee ceW Jele&ceeve keÀe³e& mes peg›s ceeheob[ ®egveeJe kesÀ oewjeve MeheLe-he$e ceW Ieesef 84 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 85 Fme efJeYeeie ceW efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀes DeefOekeÀlece 10 DebkeÀ efceue mekeÀles nQ~ ³eneB DebkeÀ mecetn he´efleMele ÞesCeer kesÀ otmeje keÀoce: Devegmeej efoS ieS nQ: cegÎeW keÀes Jeieeake=Àle efkeÀ³ee ie³ee nw: G®®elece he´efleMelekeÀ 10 Deewj Gmeer Devegmeej efvecvelece. * keWÀê mejkeÀej mes peg[s * keÀ. Gþe³es cegÎeW keÀe cenlJe jep³e mejkeÀej mes peg[s * efouueer veiej efveiece (mLeeefvekeÀ Meemeve mebmLee) mes peg[s Gþe³es ie³es cegÎeW keÀer kesÀJeue mebK³ee venerb osKeer nw, yeequkeÀ Gve cegÎeW keÀer iegCeJeÊee Yeer osKeer nw~ Fme DeeOeej hej * keWÀê/jep³e/efouueer veiej efveiece Yeej le³e keÀjves kesÀ efueS veer®es efo³es ieS JeieeakeÀjCe keÀe Fmlesceeue efkeÀ³ee nw: ³en JeieeakeÀjCe mebefJeOeeve keÀer meeleJeeR Devegmet®eer, efouueer jeä^er³e jepeOeeveer #es$e kesÀ mejkeÀej DeefOeefve³ece henuee keÀoce: 1991, Deewj efouueer veiej efve³ece DeefOeefve³ece 1957 FvekesÀ DeeOeej hej efkeÀ³ee ie³ee nw~ kegÀue Yeej Thej mebyebefOele Gþe³es cegÎeW keÀe Yeej Fme DeeOeej hej le³e efkeÀ³ee nw efkeÀ ³en cegÎs keWÀê met®eer kesÀ nw ³ee jep³e met®eer kesÀ kesÀ JeieeakeÀjCe mes 3:13:4:7 kesÀ mebyebefOele Devegheele mes efo³es ie³es nQ~ nw ³ee veiej efveiece keÀer met®eer mes nw~ cegÎeW keÀe Yeej le³e keÀjves keÀer he×efle Deeies mheä keÀer nw~ henues keÀoce ceW Gþe³es ie³es efJeefMeä cegÎs keÀe Yeej le³e keÀjves kesÀ efueS (GoenjCe kesÀ leewj hej veiej efveiece efMe#ee Gþe³es ie³es cegÎeW keÀe Yeej le³e keÀjvee kesÀ efueS 9) Jen cegÎe keWÀê/jep³e/veiej efveiece FveceW mes efkeÀmeer SkeÀ kesÀ oe³ejs ceW nw ³ee meeceeef³ekeÀ oe³ejs ceW JeieeakeÀjCe cegÎs Yeej kegÀue nw, kesÀ Devegmeej otmejs keÀoce ceW efo³es ie³es Yeej keÀe Fmlesceeue efkeÀ³ee ie³ee nw (GoenjCe kesÀ leewj hej mLeeefvekeÀ veeieefjkeÀ (me[keÀ, ceue he´Jeen- 8 Meemeve kesÀ efueS 4)~ he×efle pewmeer veeieefjkeÀ megefJeOeeSb) Gþe³es ie³es cegÎs keÀe cenlJe le³e keÀjves kesÀ efueS veer®es efo³es ngS met$e keÀe Fmlesceeue efkeÀ³ee nw: mecegoe³e keÀu³eeCe 6 I -Yeej; Q - efJeefMeä efJe 86 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 87 keWÀê/jep³e/ 4. pevecele meJex#eCe mes he´ehle ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeDeeW kesÀ ceeheob[ keWÀê jep³e veiej efveiece veiej efveiece ueesieeW keÀer OeejCeeDeeW keÀes 40 DebkeÀeW keÀe Yeej efo³es peeves kesÀ keÀejCe GmekeÀe efJeYeepeve Deewj 4 J³eehekeÀ #es$eeW (3) (13) (4) (7) ceW efkeÀ³ee ie³ee nw~ efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ keÀecekeÀepe kesÀ cenlJe keÀes ueskeÀj Fve ®eej #es$eeW keÀes Deueie Deueie Yeej efo³ee ie³ee nw~ veer®es efo³es ngS he×efle mes Yeej keÀe efJeYeepeve efkeÀ³ee nw: peueefvekeÀeme keÀer veeieefjkeÀ megefJeOee (8) 8*1†8 meeJe&peefvekeÀ mesJeeDeeW keÀes ueskeÀj OeejCeeDeeW keÀes (#es$e keÀer megefJeOeeDeeW kesÀ yeejs ceW ueesieeW keÀer ke̳ee je³e nw) mecegoe³e keÀu³eeCe (6) 6*1†6 20 DebkeÀ efo³es nQw efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ yeejs ceW peeieªkeÀlee Deewj GvekeÀer DeefYeiec³elee keÀes 6 DebkeÀ efo³es nQ 5+16+ Ye´äe®eej met®eer keÀes 10 DebkeÀ efo³es nQ kegÀue 5 16 8 6 8+6†35 J³eehekeÀ keÀe³e&Jeener keÀes 4 DebkeÀ efo³es nQ Ghe³eg&ÊeÀ DebkeÀ osves kesÀ efueS veeieefjkeÀeW Üeje efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ yeejs ceW peeieªkeÀ nesves Deewj efJeOee³ekeÀ lekeÀ 15+208+ hengB®e ³ee ueesieeW kesÀ mekeÀejelcekeÀ nesves keÀe meceie´ DevegYeJe, keÀer yepee³e #es$e ceW oer peeves Jeeueer megefJeOeeDeeW kegÀue * JeieeakeÀjCe kesÀ Devegmeej Yeej 5*3†15 16*13†208 8*4†32 6*7†42 32+42†297 Deewj Ye´äe®eej pewmes cegÎeW keÀes DeefOekeÀ cenlJe osvee Lee~ efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ efJeefJeOe #es$eeW kesÀ keÀece kesÀ keÀejCe GvekesÀ he´efle meblegeqä keÀe YeeJe nesvee peªjer nw~ Fmeer Jepen meW Gve keÀeceeW keÀes meJe&meeOeejCe mekeÀejelcekeÀ 297/35†8 OeejCeeDeeW mes DeefOekeÀ he´eLeefcekeÀlee oer peeveer ®eeefnS~ Gmeer lejn SkeÀ efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ yeejs ceW meJe&meeOeejCe Gþe³es ie³es cegÎeW kesÀ efueS DebkeÀ 10 ceW 3 nw Ssmee ceevee lees - (((((8/27)x100)+(3/10) OeejCee meblegeqä keÀer nes mekeÀleer nw, uesefkeÀve peye Deehe GvekesÀ Deueie Deueie henuegDeeW keÀes ienjeF& mes osKeles x100))/2)x27)/100†8.29 G®®elece 27 ceW mes~ Fme lejn efJeOee³ekeÀ keÀes 8.29 DebkeÀ nQ lees mekeÀejelcekeÀ Deewj vekeÀejelcekeÀ ue#eCe mheä nes peeles nQ~ efceueles nQ~ ®eej J³eehekeÀ #es$eeW keÀe Yeej le³e keÀjves kesÀ yeeo Deieues keÀoce ceW pees megefJeOeeSb jep³e kesÀ DeefOekeÀej - #es$e ceW Deeleer nQ GvnW keWÀê Meemeve ³ee veiej efveiece mes peg›er keÀe³eeX keÀer leguevee ceW DeefOekeÀ Yeej efo³ee ie³ee~ Fmeer keÀejCe, [. Dehe´wue 2018 mes cee®e& 2019 lekeÀ kegÀue mLeeefvekeÀ #es$e efJekeÀeme efveefOe keÀe Fmlesceeue meeJe&peefvekeÀ mesJeeDeeW keÀes ueskeÀj OeejCeeDeeW keÀes Deewj 3 heo¬eÀce mlejeW ceW efJeYeeefpele efkeÀ³ee ie³ee~ henues mlej efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀes GvekesÀ keÀe³e&keÀeue ceW mLeeefvekeÀ #es$e efJekeÀeme efveefOe efceuelee nw~ Deheves efveJee&®eve #es$e ceW ceW jep³e mejkeÀej kesÀ efueS cenlJehetCe& ³eespeveeDeeW keÀe meceeJesMe nw, peye efkeÀ leermejs mlej ceW keWÀê Meemeve Deewj veiej efveiece kesÀ efueS cenlJehetCe& ³eespeveeDeeW keÀe meceeJesMe nw~ efJekeÀeme keÀe³eeX kesÀ efueS mJeefveCe&³e mes ³en efveefOe Jes Fmlesceeue keÀj mekeÀles nQ~ efveefOe mes G®®elece heefjCeece heeves kesÀ efueS Gmes efveOee&efjle ®ejCeye× lejerkesÀ mes ner Fmlesceeue keÀjvee neslee nw~ Deewj ³en leYeer nes mekeÀlee henuee mlej - Fme mlej ceW ì^wefHeÀkeÀ peece Deewj Yeer›, Dee@ìes efjkeÌMee, ì@keÌmeer, yeme, ueeskeÀue ì^sve pewmeer meeJe&peefvekeÀ heefjJenve megefJeOee efceuevee, GvekeÀe he³ee&hle nesvee, efyepeueer keÀer Deehete|le, peueehete|le, #es$e ceW nw peye efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ heeme GvekeÀer DeJeefOe keÀer Meg©Deele mes ner Gef®ele ³eespevee nes~ Dev³eLee Deveewhe®eeefjkeÀ he´ot 88 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 89 Fme ®egveeJe ceW peerleves Jeeuee GcceeroJeej efJeOee³ekeÀ yeve peelee nw Deewj Gmes efveJee&®eve #es$e kesÀ keÀe³eeX keÀe he´yebOeve ì^wefHeÀkeÀ peece Deewj Yeer› keÀjves keÀe DeefOekeÀej neslee nw~ meeJe&peefvekeÀ GÐeeve/cewoeve GheueyOe nesvee efouueer ceW, nj SkeÀ efveJee&®eve #es$e efHeÀj mes veiej efveiece kesÀ Jee[eX ceW yeebìs ieS nQ~ nj SkeÀ Jee[& mes ®egvekeÀj Dee@ìes efjkeÌMee, ì@keÌmeer, yeme, ueeskeÀue ì^sve pewmeer meeJe&peefvekeÀ heefjJenve megefJeOee efceuevee, GvekeÀe he³ee&hle nesvee Dee³es ngS efJeOee³ekeÀ mLeeefvekeÀ keÀe³e& keÀe he´yebOeve keÀjles nQ~ Fme lejn mLeeefvekeÀ mlej hej efpeccesoeefj³eeW keÀes Demheleeue Deewj Dev³e ef®eefkeÀlmee megefJeOeeSb mheä ªhe mes meeQhee ie³ee nw~ he³ee&hle heeþMeeueeSb ®etBefkeÀ, nceeje DeO³e³eve efJeOee³ekeÀeW kesÀ he´oMe&ve keÀe cetu³eebkeÀve keÀjves hej keWÀefêle nw, Fve meYeer efJeOee³ekeÀeW efyepeueer keÀer Deehete|le kesÀ #es$eeW keÀe he´efleefveefOelJe keÀjvee DeeJeM³ekeÀ Lee~ peueehete|le FmeefueS nceves nj efveJee&®eve #es$e mes vecetvee uesves keÀe efveCe&³e efue³ee~ uesefkeÀve #es$e Deewj ueeskeÀmebK³ee kesÀ peue YejeJe DeeOeejeW hej le³e efkeÀS ngS efveJee&®eve #es$eeW kesÀ DeekeÀej Deueie Deueie nw~ Fme Jepen mes nj SkeÀ efveJee&®eve he´ot 90 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 91 ¬eÀ. ceeheob[ J³eehekeÀ JeieeakeÀjCe iegCe DeefOekeÀlece [eìe keÀe Yeej efve³eefcele keÀjvee: iegCe meJex#eCe keÀjles mece³e, Deece leewj hej vecetves mes efceueves Jeeues DeebkeÀ›eW keÀer leguevee meeJe&YeewefcekeÀ leLee ueeskeÀmebK³ee 11 Demheleeue Deewj Dev³e ef®eefkeÀlmee ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 67 100 cetu³eeW mes keÀer peeleer nw~ ³en cetu³e Deueie mece³e hej efkeÀ³es ie³es Gmeer meJex#eCe mes Deeles nw ³ee efkeÀmeer Dev³e megefJeOeeSb ñeesle mes Deeles nQ~ 12 he³ee&hle heeþMeeueeSb ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 68 100 Fme DeO³e³eve ceW, he´ehle Dee³eg Deewj eEueie mebj®evee keÀer leguevee nceves IRS DeO³e³eve keÀer meceeve mebj®evee mes keÀer 13 me[keÀeW keÀer neuele ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 63 100 nw~ Fme lejn ueeskeÀmebK³ee mes peg›s ceecetueer efJe®eueve þerkeÀ keÀj efo³es ie³es~ 14 ì^wefHeÀkeÀ peece Deewj Yeer[ ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 1 76 100 Fme lejn, Yeej efo³es peeves mes vee ner kesÀJeue pevemeebeqK³ekeÀer³e ®etkeÀ otj ngF&, yeequkeÀ pevemebK³ee keÀe mener 15 meeJe&peefvekeÀ GÐeeve/cewoeve GheueyOe ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 56 100 he´efleefveefOelJe he´ehle nesves ceW Yeer ceoo efceueer~ nesvee 5. vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve kesÀ ceeheob[ 16 Dee@ìes efjkeÌMee, ì@keÌmeer, yeme, ueeskeÀue ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 1 65 100 ì^sve pewmeer meeJe&peefvekeÀ heefjJenve megefJeOee ve³es FIR ceeceueW ope& nesves kesÀ keÀejCe vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve efceuevee, GvekeÀe he³ee&hle nesvee Deiej ®egvekeÀj Deeves kesÀ yeeo efJeOee³ekeÀ hej ve³ee FIR ceeceuee ope& ngDee nw, lees ³en eE®elee keÀer yeele nw~ Fmeer 17 peueehete|le ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 1 77 100 keÀejCe mes efJeOee³ekeÀ ves he´ehle kegÀue DebkeÀeW ceW mes 5 DebkeÀ keÀce keÀj efo³es ieS nw~ 18 yeejerMe ceW peue YejeJe ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 79 100 O³eeve osb efkeÀ vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve keÀjles mece³e, SkeÀ ³ee SkeÀ mes DeefOekeÀ ceeceues (FIR) (ueeskeÀ he´efleefveefOelJe 19 meHeÀeF& Deewj mJe®ílee megefJeOeeSb ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 3 66 100 DeefOeefve³ece, 1951) ope& nesves Hej Yeer nceves efmeHe&À SkeÀ ner yeej vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve keÀe He´³eesie efkeÀ³ee nw~ 20 hewoue ³eeef$e³eeW kesÀ efueS HetÀìheeLe Deewj ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 57 100 Deejeshe he$e ope& nesves kesÀ keÀejCe vekeÀejelcekeÀ DebkeÀve peieneW keÀe nesvee 21 meeJe&peefvekeÀ Meew®eeue³eeW keÀer GHeueyOelee ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 64 100 Deejeshe he$e oeefKeue nesvee celeueye DehejeOe keÀe þesme meyetle nesvee~ efJeOee³ekeÀeW keÀer veweflekeÀ F&ceeveoejer keÀes ueskeÀj ³en iebYeerj cegÎe nw~ Fmeer keÀejCe mes DehejeOe mebyebOeer Deejeshe he$e ope& nesves hej efJeOee³ekeÀ kesÀ kegÀue he´ehle DebkeÀeW 22 meeJe&peefvekeÀ Meew®eeue³eeW keÀer mJe®ílee ueesieeW keÀer je³e - mlej 2 64 100 ceW mes 5 DebkeÀ keÀce keÀj efo³es ieS nw (MeheLe-he$e ceW efo³es ³ee ve³es DehejeOe mebyebOeer FIR mes mebyebefOele Deejeshe peeueeroej ®ejeW kesÀ DebkeÀ he$e - ueeskeÀ he´efleefveefOelJe DeefOeefve³ece, 1951 kesÀ Devegmeej)~ ¬eÀ. peeueeroej ®ej efo³es ie³es Yeej DebkeÀ DeefOekeÀlece meeue ceW mebheefÊe³eeb Deewj osveoeefj³eeb leLee DehejeOe-mebyebOeer DeefYeuesKeeW keÀe Kego Iees 92 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 93 Once the areas of evaluation were finalised, it was important to decide upon the methodology which would best provide the required information. Information THE METHODOLOGY mentioned in points 1 and 2 above was gathered from RTI and by means of secondary research. MLA Scores have been derived out of maximum 100 marks with 60% weightage given to tangible facts about the MLA. For the Information 1. The Matrix – Scale of Ranking on the 3rd point a primary survey was conducted amongst the citizens in each The Matrix for measuring the functioning of the MLAs has been designed by Praja constituency to evaluate the perceived performance of the MLA. 40% weightage with inputs from reputed people with sectoral knowledge in governance, political was given to perceived performance of MLAs in the minds of common people. science, market research, media. The data used for points 1 and 2 has been collected from government sources: In order to design the research and get the desired output, it was important to a. Election Commission of India’s Website. answer the following two issues: b. Under Right to Information Act from Vidhan Bhavan. a. On what parameters should the performance of MLAs be evaluated? c. Delhi Government Website. b. How should the research be designed in order to represent areas of each MLA and meet the right people? d. Under Right to Information Act from Delhi Police. For the first question, The Indian Democracy functions on rules and strictures laid People’s perception as per point 3 has been mapped through an opinion poll th down in The Constitution of India adopted on 26 November, 1949. The Constitution of 27,121 people across the city of Delhi by Hansa Market Research conducted has been amended on numerous occasions and various acts have been passed through a structured questionnaire. and adopted by subsequent assemblies to strengthen the functioning of centre, state and local self government institutions. All these acts/legislations with their It is very important to understand here that the matrix is objectively designed base in the Constitution give our elected representatives needed powers for and provides no importance to the political party of the representative or to any functioning; have built the needed checks and balances; and serve as the source personal/political ideology. of the terms of reference for the elected representatives on all aspects of their conduct as the people’s representatives. Hence the first parameter for evaluating Criminalisation of politics in the country has been growing since independence and the performance of MLAs is based solely in the mechanisms and instruments, and is a phenomenon which if not checked now can destroy the democratic foundations duties and responsibilities as laid down in The Constitution of India. of our nation. Hence personal criminal record related parameters pertaining to the elected representative are taken into consideration such as: the FIR cases registered However, The Constitution itself derives its power from the free will of its citizens against them as stated in the election affidavit; new FIR cases registered against as also the document itself states that it has been adopted, enacted and given to them after being elected in the current term; and important pending charge sheets. themselves by the people. Hence the perceptions of the people who are represented by the elected representatives is the other important, necessary parameter for Scale of Ranking evaluating the performance of the elected representatives (the MLAs). Thus, to Sr. Indicator Max Comments answer the second question it is necessary to study people’s perceptions of the No. MLAs' performance, in their respective constituencies. 1 Present The next few pages will elaborate the study design and details of the study A Sessions Attended (*) 10 Based on percentage of attendance. 1) 100% to 91%- conducted to judge the performance of MLAs in Delhi; but before we get into 10; 2) 90% to 76% - 8; 3) 75% to 61% -6; 4) 60% to details, it is important to understand the sources of data and its broad usage in 51% - 4; and 5) below 50% - 0. the ranking matrix. B Number of issues raised(*) 10 Against Group Percentage Rank. 16 being the top most percentile and so on to the The following information was required to judge the performance of each MLA in lowest. the city: C Importance of issues 27 Weightages are given to issues raised through the 1. Some of the tangible parameters like an MLAs attendance in the assembly, raised (Quality of issues questions depending on whether they belong to the the number of issues she/he has raised in the house, importance of those raised)(*) State List, Central List, are in the domain of Municipal issues raised, and utilisation of funds allotted to her/him. Authority or are in the shared domain of State/ Centre / 2. Some parameters on her/his background such as educational qualification, Municipal. The scale is given in the separate table below. income tax records and criminal record (if any). In the aggregate scale (out of 100) the following 3. Some soft parameters like the perception/impression of the people in weightage is given: Centre gets 3; State gets 13; her/his constituency, awareness about them, satisfaction with their work and Municipal Corporation Delhi gets 4 and Centre / State / improvement in the quality of life because of the MLA. Municipal Corporation Delhi gets 7. 94 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 95 Scale of Ranking 2. Parameters for Past Records as per Affidavit Sr. Indicator Max Comments Parameters for Past Records are based on information in election affidavit that No. includes educational, criminal and financial records of MLAs. Total eight marks out D Total Local Area 5 Calculation for the current financial year is done of maximum 100 marks are allocated for this parameter. Development Funds for the sanctioned fund of Rs. 4 crore approved till a. Education Utilised during March 2019. (1) 100% (or more) to 91%- 5; (2) 90% to If the elected representative has declared in his affidavit, education qualification (April 2018 to 76% - 4; (3) 75% to 61% - 3; (4) 60% to 51% - 2; and as 10th pass or more than that then on the scale one mark is allocated, else zero March 2019) (5) below 50% - 0. Please refer pg. 101 for more. marks are given. Total 52 st 2 Past As a developing country in the 21 century, basic modern education is an important A Education Qualification 1 A minimum of 10th Pass - 1; if not - 0 criterion for human development. Even at lowest clerical jobs in the government, B Income Tax 2 (1) Possessing PAN Card - 1 the government insists on a minimum educational level. Going by the same logic (2) Disclosing Income in Affidavit - 1 and the times, it is prudent that a similar yardstick be applied to our elected C Criminal Record 5 If the candidate has zero cases registered against her/ representatives. However, we also believe that the educational parameter should him, then 5; else as below: be given a minimal weightage in the overall scheme vis-a-vis other parameters, (1) Criminal Cases Registered containing the following that are more crucial for judging performance of the elected representatives. charges: Murder, Rape, Molestation, Riot, Extortion - 0 b. Income Tax (2) Other criminal cases than the above mentioned - 3 It is widely published and believed in India that annual income levels and wealth of Total 8 those who are elected sees a manifold increase during the term. On this parameter, 3 Perception Based on a opinion poll of 27,121 people spread across marks are allocated only for declaring returns (one mark) and for possessing a PAN different constituencies in the city of Delhi card (one mark), as per the affidavit. A Perception of Public 20 Score on Public Services c. Criminal Record Services Criminalisation of politics is a sad reality. A significant number of elected B Awareness & Accessibility 6 Score on Awareness amongst people about their representatives have a criminal record i.e. 1) they have FIRs registered against representative, their political party and ease of access them; 2) charge sheets filed; and 3) convictions given by the courts of law. to the representative C Corruption Index 10 Score on perceived personal corruption of the There is no excuse for not having moral probity in public life. It is the right of the representative citizens to have people representing them with no criminal records. Hence the D Broad Measures 4 Score on overall satisfaction and improvement in scheme of ranking has taken into account marks for people with clean records: quality of life i. Those with absolutely no criminal FIRs registered are given five marks. Total 40 ii. Those with FIRs registered against, with cases containing the following 4 Negative marking for new -5 For any new FIR registered during the year. charges: murder, rape, molestation, riot and extortion are given zero marks. criminal cases registered iii. Those with other FIRs registered against, other than those mentioned in No. ii during the year above, are given three marks. 5 Negative marking for -5 For any Charge sheet in a criminal case. Charge sheet We have negative markings as explained in No. 5 ahead for other parameters 6 Negative marking for -5 This can be done on own website, newspaper, related to crime records like charge sheet. no annual pro-active Praja Website or any other source which should be Kindly note that allocating scoring for each individual case would have been disclosures by the elected announced publicly. complex, instead scoring for cases after them being categorised as above seemed representatives of Assets Also marks would be cut for wrong disclosures in the more logical and hence number of individual cases are not that important but the and Liabilities and Criminal above mentioned forums. (**) category of case is needed for the scoring. record 3. Parameters for Present Performance in the State Legislature Total 100 In an indirect, representative democracy like India’s, citizens elect candidates who (*) Sessions taken into account for this report card are 16th March 2018 to 28th February 2019. can represent them in the houses of legislation and deliberate on issues related (**) This negative parameter on proactive disclosures has not been applied. But as one to the citizens and form needed legislations under the guidelines and using the of the primary purpose of the Report Card is to promote transparency amongst elected mechanisms of the Constitution. Thus it is very clear that the weightages in the representatives, it is imperative that they proactively provide personal information on their personal annual economic status and to emphasise their probity in public life, they should performance scale have to be more biased to these functions of the elected share every year their updated criminal record. representatives i.e. of Deliberation. 96 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 97 a. Session Attendance Weightage to Issues raised The mandate given by citizens to the representatives is to attend the business Classification Issues Weightages Total of the respective legislative houses. It is hence prudent that the representatives Civic (civic amenities such as 8 attend 100% or near to 100% sessions of their respective houses. Hence the roads, sewage, etc.) marking as follows based on percentage of attendance: (1) 100% to 91% - ten Community Welfare 6 marks; (2) 90% to 76% - eight marks; (3) 75% to 61% - six marks; (4) 60% to Social Infrastructure Crime 5 41 51% - four marks; and (5) below 50% - zero marks. Education 9 b. Number of Issues Raised Health 8 There cannot be really a set benchmark for the right number of issues Social cultural concerns 5 raised that have to be asked by a representative. However given the range Energy 9 and complexity of issues that our country is facing, it is necessary for the Physical Infrastructure Transport 9 19 representative to raise as many issues as they can, which are necessary for Forest 1 Financial Institutions 2 the citizens. Hence to stimulate the representatives to ask maximum number Economic Infrastructure 10 of issues raised the scale uses the percentile system for scoring. Industries 8 Devices used for asking ‘Issues Raised’ that have been considered in the Revenue 6 marking as per Delhi Assembly Rules: Governance/Policy Making Corruption & Scams 6 18 • Calling Attention (Rule 54) Schemes / Policies 6 • Motion for Adjournment (Rule 59 - 65) Irrigation 4 • Motions (Rule 107 - 117) Agriculture/ Agriculture 2 9 • No Confidence Motions (Rule 251 - 252) Food Infrastructure Animal Husbandry 3 • Resolutions/Private member Resolution (Rule 89) • Resolutions (Rule 90) Other Other issues related 3 3 • Short Duration Discussions (Rule 55 - 58) 100 • Short Notice Questions (Rule 32) • Special Mention (Rule 280) Step 2: • Starred Questions (Rule 33) • Unstarred Questions (Rule 33) Issues are categorised into: • Questions to private members (Rule - 47) n Centre based • Questions Involving Breach of Privilege and Contempt (Rule 66-83) n State based The marking for this section is out of a maximum 10 marks that the n Municipal Corporation Delhi [Local Self Government (LSG)] representative can get for being the person with the maximum number of n Centre / State / Municipal Corporation Delhi issues raised. The marking here is done against Group Percentage Rank: This Categorisation is based on the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of 10 being the top most percentile and so on to the lowest. India, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 and the c. Importance of Issues Raised (Quality of Issues Raised) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Overall weightage is given respective in the ratio of 3:13:4:7 in the above categories. It is not just the number of issues raised that are asked but also the quality of Thus after applying weightage for a issue raised under Step 1 for a particular issues raised. The system for weightages here is designed as below: issue (for e.g. 9 for Muncipal Education), weightage under Step 2 (for e.g. 4 Step 1: for LSG) is applied based on whether the issue is under the domain of state, Issues are given certain weightages depending on them being prime functions local self government, centre or jointly under Centre / State / LSG. of the State Legislature or of the Municipal bodies or the Centre. As explained Formula representation of the calculation done to determine importance of the ahead in weightages to issues raised. issue raised by categorisation in seventh schedule 98 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 99 I -Weightage; Q - No. of Issues Raised on a particular subject; T - Total; C - Category; Hence the calculation for the current financial year is done for the sanctioned M - Marks as per categorisation fund of Rs. 4 crore approved till March 2019. (1) 100% (or more) to 91%- 5; (2) 90% to 76% - 4; (3) 75% to 61% - 3; (4) 60% to 51% - 2; and (5) below (I1 * Q1)+(I1 * Q1)+.....(Inth * Qnth) = T1; (I2 * Q2)+(I2 * Q2)+.....(Inth * Qnth) = T2 50% - 0. (I3 * Q3)+(I3 * Q3)+.....(Inth * Qnth) = T3; Note: Local Area Development fund for the current year has not been T1+T2+T3 = Tx; (T1 * C1)+(T2 * C2)+(T3 * C3) = TCy calculated in the scoring because the data is incomplete. There is TCx / Ty = M discrepancy in the RTI response and the fund utilisation uploaded on the Delhi Government website due to the transfer of implementation of the Step 3: MLA Local Area Development fund (MLA LAD) scheme from the District Urban Development Agency to the Urban Development Department, The score in step 2 (M) is further weighted by score for Number of Issues Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Hence to maintain Raised (Point C). parity in the scoring for this year we have not calculated marks in this section for all the MLAs. Illustration for marking Importance of Issues Raised If an MLA has asked a total of 5 issues: 1 related to crime under centre category, 4. Parameters for People’s Perception as per Opinion Poll 2 related to civic-water supply under state category, 1 related to Drainage under Since perceived performance was given a weightage of 40 points, we divided it Municipal Corporation Delhi and 1 related to community welfare under joint further in to 4 broad areas in order to evaluate the performance in detail. All these domain of Centre / State / Municipal; then the marking will be as below: four areas were given differential weightage based to the importance in defining Centre State Municipal C/S/M* the MLAs performance. The weightages were divided in the following scheme: (3) (13) (4) (7) n Perception of Public Services (impression of the people about the facilities Crime (5) 5*1=5 in the area) was given a weightage of 20 points, Civic-Water Supply (8) 8*2=16 n Awareness & Accessibility of the MLA was given a weightage of 6 points, Civic-Drainage (8) 8*1=8 n Corruption index was given a weightage of 10 points and Community Welfare (6) 6*1=6 n Broad overall measures were given a weightage of 4 points Total 5 16 8 6 5+16+8+6=35 The rationale for giving the above scoring points was to give more importance Total * Category Weightage 5*3=15 16*13= 8*4=32 6*7=42 15+208+32+42 to the key issues like facilities in the area & corruption as compared to the 208 =297 citizens being aware of the MLA and the MLA being accessible or overall feel of the people being positive. This is because we believe that scoring 297/35 = 8 Assuming the score for number of issues raised is 3 out of 10. positively overall or being popular is actually a function of your work in different (((((8/27)×100)+((3/10)×100))/2)×27)/100=8.29 out of maximum 27. So the MLA gets 8.29 Marks. areas. Hence, these areas should be given more importance than the overall satisfaction. Moreover a blanket overall performance for an individual may be (*) Centre / State / Municipal Corporation Delhi good but when interrogated deeply about different traits the positives and d. Total Local Area Development Funds Utilised during April 2018 to negatives can be clearly pointed. March 2019 The next step after assigning weightages to four broad areas was to make sure that facilities which come under the state jurisdiction get more importance MLAs get a Local Area Development Fund during their tenure. This fund they than the ones which come under the central government’s jurisdiction or the can spend as per their discretion on certain specified development work in local self government’s jurisdiction. Hence the weightage for Perception of their constituencies. It is necessary that the funds are utilised in a planned Public Services was further divided into a hierarchy of 3 levels to meet the phased manner to achieve optimal results. And this can only happen if the desired objective. Level 1 included facilities which are more critical to state representative has an appropriate plan right from the start of their term and government whereas Level 3 included facilities that are more critical to central that they do not spend the fund in an adhoc manner and that not entirely government or the local self government. towards the end of their terms without focus on the needs of their constituency. 100 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 101 n Level 1 – This level included areas like Traffic Jams & congestion, n The required information was collected through face to face household Availability/Adequacy of public transport facilities like Auto rickshaw, Taxis, interviews with the help of structured questionnaire. Buses & Local trains, Power Supply, Water Supply, Pollution problems in n In order to meet the respondent, following sampling process was followed: the area. It was given a weightage of 10 points. p 2 – 3 prominent areas in the ward were identified and the sample was n Level 2 – This level included areas Condition of roads, Availability of public divided amongst them. gardens, Hospitals and other medical facilities, Appropriate schools for availing p Respondents were intercepted in households in these areas and the education facilities, Water logging, Instances of crime, Availability of footpaths required information was obtained from them. and pedestrian walking areas. Availability of public toilets and cleanliness of public toilets. It was given a weightage of 7 points. n Sample composition of age & gender was corrected to match the universe profile using the baseline data from IRS. n Level 3 – This level included areas like Law & Order, Cleanliness & Sanitation facilities. It was given a weightage of 3 points. n The final sample spread achieved for each assembly constituency is as follows: Research Design: Parameters of Evaluation: n A Member of Legislative Assembly, or MLA, is a representative elected by While deciding the parameters of evaluation for a MLA, we wanted to make the voters of an electoral district to the Legislature of a State in the Indian sure that we covered issues at both the state & central level and hence decided system of Government. An electoral district (also known as a constituency) to capture the information on four important aspects. These were as follows: is a distinct territorial subdivision for holding a separate election for a seat in a legislative body. n Impression of the people about different facilities in his/her area n Winner of this seat in the constituency is termed as an MLA and has the p Condition of roads power to manage the functioning of the constituency. p Traffic jams & Congestion of roads n In Delhi, each constituency has further been divided into councillor p Availability of public gardens/open playgrounds constituency wards and a municipal Councillor is elected to oversee p Availability/Adequacy of public transport facilities like Auto rickshaw, the functioning of each ward. Hence, there is a clear delegation of Taxis, Buses & Local trains responsibilities at the ground level. n Since, our study focused on evaluating the performance of MLAs it was p Hospitals and other medical facilities necessary to cover and represent all the assembly constituencies to which p Appropriate schools for availing education facilities each of these MLAs belonged. p Power Supply n Hence, we decided to cover a sample from each constituency. However, p Water Supply it is also known that constituencies differ in size as calculated in terms p Water logging during rainy season of area coverage and population. The number of the wards within each p Pollution problems assembly constituency also differs. p Instances of Crime n The total sample for the study covered for 68 MLA Assembly constituency (Excluding Cantonment and New Delhi Constituency) = 27,121 respondents. p Law & Order situation n Next step was to define the target group for the study. We finalised on p Cleanliness & Sanitation facilities covering within each ward: p Availability of footpaths and pedestrian walking areas p Both Males & Females p Availability of public toilets p 18 years and above (eligible to vote) p Cleanliness of public toilets n Once the target group was defined, quotas for representing gender and n Awareness & Accessibility of the MLA age groups were set. n The quotas were set on the basis of age and gender split available through n Perception of corruption for MLA – among those who are aware of the MLA Indian Readership Study, a large scale baseline study conducted nationally n Broad overall measures like overall satisfaction with MLA & improvement by Media Research Users Council (MRUC) & Hansa Research group. in quality of life because of MLA. 102 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 103 SAMPLE SIZE: BY ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY MAP OF DELHI Constituency Area Name Sample Constituency Area Name Sample N No. Size No. Size 1 Narela 505 35 Najafgarh 440 2 Burari 574 36 Bijwasan 495 3 Timarpur 410 37 Palam 360 4 Adarsh Nagar 314 39 Rajinder Nagar 305 5 Badli 499 41 Jangpura 306 6 Rithala 503 42 Kasturba Nagar 302 7 Bawana (SC) 597 43 Malviya Nagar 298 8 Mundka 498 44 R K Puram 304 9 Kirari 500 45 Mehrauli 298 10 Sultan Pur Majra 388 46 Chhatarpur 395 (SC) 47 Deoli (SC) 517 11 Nangloi Jat 406 48 Ambedkar Nagar 300 12 Mangol Puri (SC) 410 49 Sangam Vihar 401 13 Rohini 411 50 Greater Kailash 301 14 Shalimar Bagh 404 51 Kalkaji 305 15 Shakurbasti 304 52 Tuglakabad Nct 309 16 Tri Nagar 405 53 Badapur 491 17 Wazirpur 406 54 Okhla 507 18 Model Town 294 55 Trilokpuri 400 19 Sadar Bazar 401 20 Chandni Chowk 305 56 Kondli 371 21 Matia Mahal 302 57 Patparganj 408 22 Ballimaran 293 58 Laxmi Nagar 387 23 Karol Bagh 301 59 Vishwas Nagar 401 24 Patel Nagar (SC) 404 60 Krishna Nagar 396 25 Moti Nagar 304 61 Gandhi Nagar 301 26 Madipur 406 62 Shahdara 371 27 Rajouri Garden 415 63 Seema Puri 408 28 Hari Nagar 283 64 Rohtas Nagar 405 29 Tilak Nagar 271 65 Sheelampur 400 30 Janakpuri 400 66 Ghonda 436 Not to Scale 31 Vikaspuri 683 67 Babarpur 406 32 Uttam Nagar 398 68 Gokalpur 390 33 Dwarka 375 69 Mustafabad 403 34 Matiala 701 70 Karawal Nagar 534 Note : Survey is not conducted for constituency no. 38 & 40 (Cantonment & New Delhi) 104 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 105 Illustration of Scorecard for an MLA: Scores of Netted Variables Sr. Parameters Broad Groupings Scores Maximum Sr. Netted Variables Weightage Assigned Scores Maximum No. Score No. Score 1 Recall for party name to which the MLA belongs Awareness & Accessibility 77 100 1 Awareness & Accessibility 6 74 100 2 Recall for name of the MLA Awareness & Accessibility 76 100 2 Broad Overall Measures 4 64 100 3 Accessibility of the MLA Awareness & Accessibility 69 100 3 Corruption Index 10 72 100 4 Satisfaction with the MLA Broad overall measures 59 100 4 Impression of people-Level 1 10 69 100 5 Improvement in Lifestyle Broad overall measures 69 100 5 Impression of people-Level 2 7 64 100 6 Corruption Corruption Index 72 100 6 Impression of people-Level 3 3 63 100 7 Power Supply Impression of people-Level 1 54 100 Weighted Final Scores 8 Instances of Crime Impression of people-Level 2 61 100 Perceived performance of the MLA = 9 Law & Order situation Impression of people-Level 3 59 100 ((6*74)+(4*64)+(10*72)+(10*69)+(7*64)+(3*63))/100 = 27.4 out of 40 This score was further added with the performance on hard parameters and a 10 Pollution problems Impression of people-Level 1 78 100 composite score for each MLA was derived. 11 Hospitals and other medical facilities Impression of people-Level 2 67 100 Weighting the data: 12 Appropriate schools for availing Impression of people-Level 2 68 100 When conducting a survey, it is common to compare the figures obtained in a education facilities sample with universe or population values. These values may come from the 13 Condition of Roads Impression of people-Level 2 63 100 same survey from a different time period or from other sources. In this case, we compared the age & gender compositions achieved in our 14 Traffic jams & Congestion of roads Impression of people-Level 1 76 100 survey with the similar compositions in IRS study (Indian Readership Survey). 15 Availability of public gardens/open Impression of people-Level 2 56 100 In the process, minor deviations for demographics were corrected. playgrounds Hence, weighting not only helped us to remove the demographic skews from our sample data but also ensured that the representation of demography 16 Availability/Adequacy of Public Transport Impression of people-Level 1 65 100 facilities like Auto rickshaw, Taxis, Buses & was correct. Local Trains 5. Parameters for Negative Marking 17 Water Supply Impression of people-Level 1 77 100 Negative marking for new FIR cases registered 18 Water Logging during rainy season Impression of people-Level 2 79 100 If there has been a new FIR registered against the elected representative after her/his election then this happens to be a matter of concern; and 19 Cleanliness & Sanitation facilities Impression of people-Level 3 66 100 hence out of the marks earned by the representative, five marks would be 20 Availability of footpaths and pedestrian Impression of people-Level 2 57 100 deducted. walking areas Do note that, in the process of allocating marks we did not take into account the number of new criminal FIR cases (as per Representation of 21 Availability of public toilets Impression of people-Level 2 64 100 the People Act, 1951), even a single occurrence is taken into account for 22 Cleanliness of public toilets Impression of people-Level 2 64 100 allocating marks. 106 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 107 Negative marking for Charge Sheet registered A charge sheet signifies prima facie evidence in the case. This is again a serious concern for moral probity of the representative. Hence out of the marks earned by the representative, five marks would be deducted for charge sheets in criminal cases (both from the affidavit and from the new FIR cases as per Representation of the People Act, 1951). Negative marking for no annual pro-active disclosures by the elected representatives of Assets and Liabilities and Criminal record As per the election commission norms the candidate standing for elections have to file an affidavit detailing amongst other things, their own assets and liabilities and criminal record. The candidate who gets elected later, does not share this information with her/his constituency or the election commission until and unless she/he stands for re-election or for a new election on different seat or post. However given the need of the time, we feel that it is necessary that the elected representatives proactively make their assets and liabilities (income status) and criminal records available to their constituencies at the end of every financial year during their term period. This can be done through Newspapers or other Public Medias or through their own Websites or through Praja Website. This will bring larger transparency. 108 DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD THE FOUR LION TORCH The four lions of the Ashoka Pillar, symbolizing power, courage, pride and confidence are the ethos behind the Indian Republic as embedded in our Constitution. We salute the top 3 ranking MLAs of Delhi as torch bearers of this idea. They have topped the list on an objective ranking system as explained earlier in this report card, performing more efficiently relative to their peers. Jai Hind. #1: GOLD #2: SILVER #3: BRONZE Trophy 1 – The Best Elected Representative as per Praja Matrix of Ranking Performance of MLAs. Trophy 2 – The Second Best Elected Representative as per Praja Matrix of Ranking Performance of MLAs. Trophy 3 – The Third Best Elected Representative as per Praja Matrix of Ranking Performance of MLAs. DELHI MLAs REPORT CARD 109 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, HAVING SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO CONSTITUTE INDIA INTO A SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AND TO SECURE TO ALL ITS CITIZENS: JUSTICE, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL; LIBERTY OF THOUGHT, EXPRESSION, BELIEF, FAITH AND WORSHIP; EQUALITY OF STATUS AND OF OPPORTUNITY; AND TO PROMOTE AMONG THEM ALL FRATERNITY ASSURING THE DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE UNITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE NATION.