Do We Impose Emergency Or Martial Law?': Delhi High Court Rejects PIL To "Gag" Demands For CM Arvind Kejriwal's Resignation

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to restrain the media houses from creating “pressure and airing sensational headlines” regarding Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's resignation and imposition of President Rule in the national capital.

The plea moved by Shrikant Prasad, an advocate by profession, sought permission for Kejriwal, who is in judicial custody in the liquor policy case, to run the government from jail. It also sought necessary arrangements for Kejriwal to interact with cabinet ministers through virtual conferencing.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited by Prasad to AIIMS.

“What do we do? Do we impose emergency? Impose censorship or martial law? What do we do? How do we pass gag orders against the press and political rivals?… how do we do that?,” the court told the petitioner.

The PIL also sought to restrain Virendra Sachdeva, BJP Delhi president, from making any “undue pressure” by protest or statement by “illegal means” for Kejriwal's resignation and to initiate action against him for gathering “illegal assembly” for protest at DDU marg on April 10.

The bench observed that since Kejriwal has already filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by ED and the Apex Court is considering the issue of interim release, no orders for allowing him to interact with cabinet ministers through VC is called for in the PIL.

Dismissing the plea, the court said that it can neither impose censorship by directing the media not to air views nor it can gag the political opponents from making statements calling for Kejriwal's resignation.

“You keep a bank draft of Rs. 1 lakh ready, that's all we can say…,” the court said.

It added: “Do we impose martial law? Say no one will speak against Mr. A or B? What do we do? There will be a gag order against everyone.”

The plea alleged that Sachdeva was arranging “tremendous pressure” by holding mass level protest and affecting traffic and peace with “politically motivated malafides.”

The petition submitted that the governance of Delhi since last 7 years has an excellent track record, in the education and health sector.

It added that the present situation of the national capital is an “extreme denial of fundamental right violations of Delhi people” under Articles 21 ,14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

The PIL stated that neither the Constitution of Indian nor any law has prohibited any ministers including, chief minister or prime minister, from running the government from jail. Appearing in person, Prasad said that if a political representative is in judicial custody, it will not come under the definition of convict as mentioned under RPA.

To this, ACJ said: “You're a lawyer no? You have graduated no? Tell us, do you think courts impose censorship under Article 226? You're asking for a gag order against the press.“

ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the Union of India submitted that the petition is misconceived in fact and law. He said that Prasad, who is a permanent resident of Jharkhand, had filed the PIL with oblique motives.

“Since the Chief Minister has already filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest but ED and the Supreme Court is considering the issue of interim release, no orders for allowing the CM to interact with cabinet ministers and MPs is called for in the PIL,” the court said while dismissing the plea.

Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the night of March 21. His judicial custody is expiring on April 23.

On April 10, the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest, observing that ED was able to place enough material, statements of approvers and AAP's own candidate stating that Kejriwal was given money for Goa elections.

The Delhi Chief Minister has challenged the said order of the Delhi High Court bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma before the Top Court. The Supreme Court yesterday hinted on releasing Kejriwal on bail, with certain restrictions.

AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are also accused in the case. While Sisodia continues to remain in jail, Singh was recently granted bail by the Supreme Court pursuant to a concession given by the ED.

ED has alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is the "kingpin" of Delhi excise scam and is directly involved in the use of proceeds of crime accounting to over Rs. 100 crores.

It is ED's case that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM).

The Central agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers.

Nair was acting on behalf of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.

Title: SHRIKANT PRASAD v. GOVT OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 564