The Delhi High Court expressed its dissatisfaction on Wednesday over the repeated filing of petitions seeking the removal of AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister following his arrest.
The court stated that once it has addressed the issue and determined it to fall within the executive domain, there should not be any “repeat litigation,” likening it to a James Bond movie with sequels.
“This is not like a James Bond movie where we will have sequels. (Lt) Governor will take a call on this. You are trying to involve us in a political thicket, that’s all,” remarked the court.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P S Arora rebuked petitioner Sandeep Kumar, a former AAP MLA who sought Kejriwal’s removal from office, for attempting to embroil the court in a “political thicket” and announced a penalty of Rs 50,000 on him.
The division bench reiterated its inability to impose governor’s rule in the capital. Noting that the petitioner was “making a mockery of the system,” the court said, “Rs 50,000 costs on you. We will pass the order.”
On March 28, the court dismissed a PIL seeking Kejriwal‘s removal, stating that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal impediment prohibiting the arrested chief minister from holding office. The court also asserted that there was no room for judicial intervention in such matters, as it falls within the purview of other state organs. Additionally, it clarified its inability to declare a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the national capital.
On April 4, the court declined to entertain a second PIL on the matter, emphasizing that it was Kejriwal‘s personal decision to remain as the chief minister and granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the lieutenant governor (LG).
During the proceedings, Kumar’s counsel argued that his case necessitated constitutional interpretation, contending that Kejriwal’s arrest in a money laundering case rendered him ineligible to hold the office of the chief minister.
Justice Manmohan remarked that if there were grievances, an appeal should have been pursued against the previous decisions instead of filing a third petition on the same issue. As the petitioner’s lawyer persisted in his arguments and questioned the recourse in case of government non-compliance with the Constitution, the court admonished him against delivering political speeches.
“Please refrain from making political speeches here. Such discussions are more suitable for elsewhere. Your client may be a politician and may engage in political activities, but we as the court abstain from such matters,” stated Justice Manmohan.
“You are trivializing the judicial system. Do not reduce us to a joke. It is because of individuals like you and your client that such situations arise. Heavy costs will be imposed on you. Do not return with repetitive litigation,” the judge added.
It further criticized the petitioner for persisting despite previous remarks made by a single judge earlier in the week and emphasized that imposition of costs was necessary to address the influx of petitions on a daily basis.
“This is sufficient. Observe the crowded courtroom. Show some respect,” the court asserted.
Kumar’s petition was transferred to the acting chief justice’s bench from Justice Subramonium Prasad’s court. On April 8, Justice Prasad labeled the petition as a publicity stunt and suggested imposing heavy costs.
In his petition, Kumar argued that following Kejriwal’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case related to the now-defunct excise policy for Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener became incapacitated to fulfill the chief minister’s duties under the Constitution.
Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, shortly after the high court denied him protection from coercive action by the federal anti-money laundering agency. He is presently in judicial custody.
The petition highlighted that the AAP leader’s unavailability complicates the constitutional framework, asserting that he cannot function as the chief minister while in prison in accordance with the Constitution’s mandate.
