No Scope For Judicial Intervention; Let Executive Branch Examine It: Delhi HC Dismisses PIL To Remove Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Government of the NCT of Delhi.
Kejriwal is currently in Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody and is likely to be produced before the Rouse Avenue Court today at 2pm on the expiration of his 6-day remand.
The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that there is no scope for Judicial intervention, let the Executive examine it.
"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 upto them. That belongs to a different wing...Are there any prohibitions? We understand that there may be some practical difficulties....The question is there are legal bar, legal prohibition...Why should we pass any orders? We don't have to give President or LG any guidance. For instance, we don't impose any President's rule, no High Court imposes it. The executive branch does it. The executive branch will look into it and examine it... I am sure the executive branch is examining all this. How does a Court get into all this?" the Bench said.
Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh, on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the continuance of Arvind Kejriwal as the Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi after his arrest by the ED in the money laundering case related to alleged Liquor policy scam has degraded the credibility and image of the NCT of Delhi in the eyes of the general public. He submitted that the continuation of Kejriwal as the CM will not only lead to obstruction of due process of law and disrupt the course of justice, but also would lead to breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State. He also relied on Rule 5 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appeared for Kejriwal, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma appeared for the Union of India.
Taking note of the submissions of the Counsel for Petitioner, the Bench said, "This Court is of the view that there is no scope for Judicial interference...It is for the other wing of the government to examine it in accordance with the law." Accordingly, the Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, dismissed the PIL.
Surjit Singh Yadav has filed a Writ Petition seeking clarification from the Centre, the Delhi government, and the principal secretary to the Lieutenant Governor regarding Arvind Kejriwal's authority as the Chief Minister of Delhi. Yadav's petition also seeks Kejriwal's removal from office.
The plea filed through Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh comes in the wake of Kejriwal's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case linked to an alleged liquor policy scam.
"That prior to the arrest of Respondent No. 4 by the Enforcement Directorate, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also refused to pass orders granting interim protection from coercive action to Respondent No. 4 in the said case," the plea stated.
The plea also stated that after Kejriwal's arrest, Atishi, an MLA of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) gave interviews to various channels on March 21, stating and affirming that Arvind Kejriwal will not resign from his post and, if needed, will run the Government from jail. She had further said, "Arvind Kejriwal was the Delhi CM, is the CM, and will continue to remain the CM, he will not resign."
"That the continuation of Respondent No. 4 as the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi will not only lead to obstruction of due process of law and disrupt the course of justice, but also would lead to breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State," the plea read. It further stated, "A Chief Minister accused of a financial scandal should not he permitted to continue in public office, as he forfeits his right to occupy a public office that demands a high degree of Constitutional Morality."
Cause Title: Surjit Singh Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C)-4578/2024]
