The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) filed against Delhi Chief Minister Aravind Kejriwal, who is currently incarcerated in connection with the Liquor Policy Scam. The court rebuked the petitioner, stating that the PIL was filed solely for gaining publicity.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora remarked, “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.”
The PIL sought a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, challenging Kejriwal’s authority as Chief Minister under Article 239AA of the Constitution and urging his removal from office.
On the High Courtās question on awareness of the orders dated 28th March, 2024, 01st April, 2024 and 04th April, 2024 passed by this Court dismissing PILS seeking identical relief, the petitioner fairly admitted that he is aware about the said orders; however, he stated that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity.
The petitionerās counsel stated 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 submitted 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.
He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
Having heard the counsel for the Petitioner, the court viewed that the present PIL is not maintainable in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court dismissed PILS seeking identical relief. In this regard, the court referred to the previous order dated 28th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 4578/2024 where it was ruled that:
āHaving 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 cĀ»gans of Ihe State to examine the said aspect in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that it has not commented upon the merits of the allegations. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.ā
The High Court noted that 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 to maintain the PIL despite being aware that the facts of the said case were completely distinguishable.
In the above-mentioned case, the respondent-Chief Minister was disqualified upon assuming office due to a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and a consequent sentence of imprisonment under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. However, it is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 1 (Aravind Kejriwal) in the present case has not faced any disqualification under the Act of 1951.
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 the Delhi High Court vide order dated 28th March, 2024 in W.P.(C) 4574/2024.
Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks. This decision underscores the court’s stance against frivolous litigation and upholds the importance of judicial efficiency.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
