Case Law Details
Sandeep Kumar Vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors (Delhi High Court)
The recent case of Sandeep Kumar Vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors before the Delhi High Court has garnered significant attention. In this article, we delve into the details of the court’s judgment dismissing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, labeling it as a publicity stunt.
The PIL, filed as a Writ of Quo Warranto, questioned the authority and qualification of Arvind Kejriwal to hold the office of Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that Kejriwal’s incarceration led to his incapacity to fulfill constitutional obligations, thereby rendering him unfit for office.
However, the court pointed out precedents, citing orders dated March 28, April 1, and April 4, 2024, where similar PILs were dismissed. The court emphasized that the petitioner was well aware of these orders but proceeded with the PIL independently, suggesting a motive of gaining publicity.
Additionally, the court highlighted the frivolity of the PIL by noting the misuse of legal precedents. Despite the petitioner’s reliance on the case of R. Kapur v. State of T.N., the court clarified the distinctions in circumstances, reinforcing the lack of merit in the present case.
Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner’s argument regarding the breakdown of constitutional machinery due to Kejriwal’s incarceration. It reiterated that such matters fall outside the purview of judicial interference and should be addressed by other organs of the state in accordance with the law.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the PIL against Arvind Kejriwal underscores the importance of upholding legal precedents and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal mechanisms for ulterior motives. Kejriwal’s position as Chief Minister remains unaffected, emphasizing the resilience of democratic institutions against unwarranted challenges.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
The present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show by what authority, qualification and title, he holds the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and inquiry to dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect
2. At the outset, i has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about th orders dated 28th March, 20241, 01st April, 20242 and 04th April, 20243 passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical relief. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity .
3. He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged in jail has incurred incapacity to carry out his Constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and hence he can no longer function as the Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that the Lieutenant Governor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence Of access to the Chief Minister.
4. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another4 to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto c an be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that the present PIL is not maintainable in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical relief. In this regard, we may refer to our order dated 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 45 78/2024, which reads as under:
1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to justify under what authority Respondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the post of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi and to further remove Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 as the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case relating to the alleged liquor policy scam has degraded the credibility and image of Government of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of general public. He states that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister has lead to breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State.
3. He contends that with the Chief Minister in custody, the State Government cannot function. In support of his contention, he relies upon Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which reads as under:-
“Every prisoner shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeking or communicating with, his family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for arranging the management of his property and family affairs
He shall be allowed to have interviews with his family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed to work any number of letters at his cost, however government will provide four post cards in a month, if he so desires.”
4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paper- book, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference in the present matter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot remove or dismiss Respondent No.4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi or declare breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. It is for the other organs of the State to examine the said aspect in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented upon the merits of the allegations.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.”
6 The filing of the present PIL by the Petitioner despite being aware of the dismissal of three earlier PILs seeking identical reliefs is sufficient evidence of the fact that the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gain publicity.
7. The Supreme Court as early as in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B5. and in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors6. has taken note of the menace of filing of the frivolous PILs and cautioned against entertaining of such PILs. In our opinion, present PIL is misconceived in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court.
8. The frivolity of the PIL is also evident from the fact that the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (supra) to maintain the PIL despite being aware that the facts of the said case were completely distinguishable. In the said case, the Respondent- Chief Minister on the date of her swearing in as a Chief Minister stood disqualified, by reason of her conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years, for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (‘Act of 1951’) Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 herein has not suffered any disqualification under the Act of 1951.
9. With respect to the submission of the Petitioner that the incarceration of the Chief Minister has led to difficulties in functioning of the Government and the Lieutenant Governor, this aspect as well was also duly considered and opined upon by by this court vide order dated 28 March 2024. in W.P. (C) 4574/2024.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (Account No:- 15530110074442, IFSC Code:- UCBA0001553, Branch:- Delhi High Court) within four weeks.
Notes:
1 W.P.(C) 4578/2024
2W.P.(C) 4642/2024
3 W.P.(C) 4904/2024
4(2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59
5 (1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59
6 (2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 an d 14
Author Bio
