Third PIL for Kejriwal’s removal as CM: Delhi High Court says it’s for 'publicity'; warns of ‘heavy costs’

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, April 8

Terming former AAP MLA Sandeep Kumar’s PIL seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal as the Delhi Chief Minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate as a “publicity” litigation, the Delhi High Court on Monday warned that “heavy costs” would be imposed on him.

“This is just for publicity… Since similar matters have been listed and disposed of by the Acting Chief Justice, list this petition before the Bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.

“I would have imposed heavy costs,” Justice Prasad warned the petitioner, while indicating that the matter will be listed for hearing on April 10 before a Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan which has already turned down two PILs seeking Kejriwal’s removal as the Delhi Chief Minister

Arrested on March 21 by the ED in a money-laundering case related to excise policy case, Kejriwal is currently lodged in Tihar Jail under judicial custody. He has refused to resign as Delhi Chief Minister.

The Delhi High Court had on March 28 dismissed a PIL filed by one Surjit Singh Yadav seeking his removal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister.

“This Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial interference vis- a-vis the relief sought for in the PIL. The PIL is dismissed. We have not commented on the merits,” a Division Bench – which also included Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora—had said, dismissing Yadav’s PIL.

Noting that it’s a personal call of Kejriwal, the Delhi High Court had on April 4 refused to entertain a PIL seeking his removal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister.

“At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. But that’s his (Kejriwal’s) personal call,” a Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said, turning down the second PIL within a week for Kejriwal’s removal as Delhi Chief Minister.

“If he (Kejriwal) does not want to do that (resign) it’s up to him. We are a court of law…Do you have any precedent that President’s rule or Governor’s rule has been imposed by the court?…” it had asked petitioner Vishnu Gupta’s counsel.

Kumar has contended that after Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED, the AAP leader has incurred an “incapacity” to carry out the Chief Minister’s functions under the Constitution as his “unavailability” complicated the constitutional mechanism and he can never function as the Chief Minister from prison.

“Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution provides for the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the legislative assembly has power to make laws. The aid and advice to the Lieutenant Governor are practically not possible without the Chief Minister being a free person available to render his aid and advice under the Constitution,” Kumar said.