Delhi High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking De-Recognition Of Aam Aadmi Party For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedents

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking de-recognition of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleging that it violated a Supreme Court ruling mandating publishing of criminal antecedents by candidates and political parties.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the plea moved by one Ashwani Mudgal who contended that there was a violation of the judgment as the AAP and its candidates failed to disclose the criminal antecedents i.e. being accused in the alleged liquor scam.

The Court asked the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court for highlighting any instance of non compliance of its verdict by the concerned party.

Mudgal claims to be a social worker and is a former Member of Delhi Rural Development Board. He is also a Senior Vice-President of Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust.

During the hearing, Justice Gedela orally remarked that once a judgment has been passed by the Apex Court, a contempt petition has to be filed there jn case of any non compliance. He also said that a petition under Article 226 in such a matter cannot be entertained.

“Can it be a 226 [petition]? No. It can't be. How can that be? You have to file a petition before the appropriate competent authority for that. We are not the competent authority,” the judge said.

On Court's query, the counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India said that there is no provision in law which empowers ECI to re-recognize a political party.

“They don't have any provision then the only recourse left to you is to approach the Supreme Court. You go to the Supreme Court. We can't pass any directions. We have to understand, if there is a provision, one can pass some directions. If there is no provision, we can't say that you don't have a provision yet you do that,” Justice Gedela remarked.

Adding to the point, CJ Upadhyay said that the PIL has got nothing to do with individual cases and individual nominations. He said:

“Here a simple issue raised by you is that in an earlier PIL, the Supreme Court had issued certain directions requiring the political parties to furnish certain information, put it on their portal etc. This was to be ensured by the ECI and if the political parties failed to do so, then it was required of the ECI to have reported the matter to the Supreme Court. So now essentially you are seeking two prayers. One, derecognize the political party. There is no provision for derecognition, suspension etc. Therefore prayer one cannot be granted. So far as prayer two is concerned, why show cause? If they have not been vested with the authority to derecognize or suspended, what for show cause?”

As the Court was not willing to entertain the matter, after some arguments, the petitioner's counsel proceeded to withdrew the PIL.

“Heard counsel for the parties. The counsel appearing for the petitioner after arguing at some length states that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for,” the Court recorded.

Title: Ashwani Mudgal v. UOI & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 99