'Don't Involve Us In Political Thicket': Delhi High Court Dismisses Third Plea To Remove Arvind Kejriwal From CM Post, Says Will Impose Costs
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. This is the third petition seeking such a relief. Earlier two pleas have been rejected.Kejriwal is presently in judicial custody in an ED case relating to the excise policy. Yesterday, the court...
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on former Aam Aadmi Party MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. This is the third petition seeking such a relief. Earlier two pleas have been rejected.
Kejriwal is presently in judicial custody in an ED case relating to the excise policy. Yesterday, the court upheld his arrest and remand in the money laundering case.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that Rs. 50,000 costs will be imposed on Kumar and that it will pass an order to that effect.
At the outset, the bench asked Kumar's counsel to show any judgment wherein the Supreme Court or any High Court has removed a Chief Minister. As the counsel referred to a judgment, the court said that the judgment being referred was in a case where there was a conviction order followed by disqualification.
“We will impose some heavy costs on you now. This is the third round of litigation we are dealing with,” the court told the counsel.
As the counsel submitted that Kejriwal is not eligible to remain appointed on the post of Chief Minister, Acting Chief Justice remarked:
“Tell us how much costs should be imposed. Because you are insisting on it despite the brother judge warning you. We told you it is not a James bond film we will keep having sequels about. This matter is done and dusted with….”
The court said that some heavy costs will have to be imposed on Kumar so that similar matters do not keep coming up on a regular basis.
”The Governor will take a call on this. We won't. You're trying to involve us in political thicket. This is the fourth person who is coming to court. Some costs will be saddled on you. We will pass an order…..Rs. 50,000 costs on you. This is enough. This is the fourth round,” the bench said as it rose for lunch break.
As Kumar's counsel made further submissions and said that where should he go if he does not have the government as per Constitution of India, the court said:
“Please don't do a political speech over here. Go to a corner of the road and do that. We have passed an order, you can challenge it…. It is because of people like your client that we are reduced to a joke. The more you speak, the more costs we will impose.”
Kumar stated that he approached the Court as a Court of first instance in writ jurisdiction by filling the writ petition, and not a PIL, in his individual capacity. He, a lawyer by profession, claimed to be a founding member of the Aam Aadmi Party and a social worker.
The plea sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Kejriwal by calling upon him to show by what authority, qualification and title he is holding the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi.
It further prayed that after an inquiry, Kejriwal be dislodged from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi, with or without the retrospective effect.
Kumar claimed that by being a voter of the Delhi Assembly Election, he is personally aggrieved for having the Chief Minister for his Union Territory who has incurred an “incapacity to hold the post” and “who can never function as the Chief Minister from the custody or prison” as envisaged by the Constitution of India.
The plea stated that Kejriwal has incurred incapacity to carry out his functions as the Chief Minister of Delhi under the Constitution and therefore, he cannot hold the post.
“Right to have a government in accordance with the Constitution is a Constitutional Right of every citizen and voter. The Petitioner is an electorate/voter/citizen of NCT of Delhi and therefore he has a constitutional right to have a government as provided by the Constitution and anything otherwise violates his Constitutional Right to have a representative government with the Chief Minister at the head of the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor (Article 239AA(4)),” the plea stated.
Kejriwal was arrested on the night of March 21. On March 22, the trial court remanded him to six days of ED custody, which was extended by a further four days. On April 01, he was remanded to judicial custody till April 15.
Earlier this month, the court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister. The PIL was filed by Vishnu Gupta, who is a social worker and National President of Hindu Sena.
Earlier, the bench dismissed a similar PIL observing that the petitioner, Surjit Singh Yadav, failed to show any bar in the law which prohibits the arrested CM from holding office.
The court had observed that there is no scope of judicial interference in the matter and that it is for the other Organs of the State to examine the issue.
Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 433