Arvind Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition to remove Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged Delhi excise policy scam [Surjit Singh Yadav v Union of India & Ors].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that it is for the executive and the President to examine the issue and the Court cannot interfere with the same.
“Is there any scope for judicial interference? We read in today’s newspaper that LG is examining the issue. It will then go before the President. That is for a different wing. We understand that there may be some practical difficulties. Why should be pass any orders? We don’t have to give President or LG any guidance. The executive branch imposes Presidential rule. It is not for us to guide them. How can we interfere in this? I am sure executive branch is examining all this,” the Court said.
The Court also said that there is no legal bar in Kejriwal continuing as the CM.
“You will have to show us some bar or prohibition that prohibits him from being a CM. If there is any constitutional failure the President or Governor will act on it. It may take some but I am sure they will decide this. The situation today is something that was not imagined. There is no legal bar today,” the bench remarked.
The Court also made it clear that it will not get into politics and the people will eventually decide these issues.
“We should not get into this politics. The political parties will get into this. They will go before the public… It is not for us,” the Court underscored.
Hence, it proceeded to dismiss the case.
“This Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference vis- a-vis the relief sought for in the PIL. The PIL is dismissed. We have not commented on the merits,” the Court said in its order.
The situation today is something that was not imagined. There is no legal bar today.
Delhi High Court
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21. The next day, judge Baweja remanded him to ED custody till March 28.
The Delhi High Court on March 27 refused to pass any interim orders in Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest and the trial court remanding him to ED custody.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said she will first consider the ED’s reply to Kejriwal’s plea and then consider passing any orders.
High Court is scheduled to hear Kejriwal’s plea on April 3 and Kejriwal continues to remain in ED custody.
He had ruled out resignation and has been running the Delhi government’s affairs from jail.
This prompted the present PIL petition by one Surjit Singh Yadav (petitioner) who claimed to be a farmer and a social activist.
The petition cited TV interviews by Delhi Legislative Assembly Speaker Ram Niwas Goel and Delhi Education Minister Atishi stating that Kejriwal will not resign and will run the government from jail if required.
It argued that the continuation of Kejriwal as CM will not only lead to obstruction of due process of law and disrupt the course of justice, but will also lead to breakdown of constitutional machinery in Delhi.
In this backdrop, it contended that persons holding high offices should follow the Constitution and not violate the law.
Further, it stated that a CM accused in a financial scandal should not be permitted to continue as he has forfeited his right to occupy a public office that demands a high degree of constitutional morality.
The plea underlined that in order to be a CM, the provisions of Articles 163 and 164 of the Indian Constitution need to be strictly adhered to. It was contended that Kejriwal does not satisfy most limbs of these two articles owing to his incarceration.
It argued that Kejriwal’s salary will not be justified given that he will not be able to perform his duties.
Notably, the PIL has also stressed that if Kejriwal performs his duties from jail, any documents travelling to him will have to be scanned by prison authorities, breaching Kejriwal’s oath of secrecy under the Third Schedule of the Constitution.
The plea highlighted that Kejriwal, being the Chief Minister, would be well within his rights to demand investigation files in cases where he in an accused.
Recently, the petitioner had filed another PIL seeking directions to Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to take action against Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and Arvind Kejriwal for allegedly making “misleading and false statements” against the government and damaging the “credibility of India”.
The PIL was dismissed by a High Court observing that the wisdom of Indian voters cannot be underestimated and they know who is speaking the truth and who is lying.
