In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. The PIL was filed in light of Kejriwal’s recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the liquor policy case.
The division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora deliberated over the matter. The PIL, filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, a Delhi resident identifying himself as a farmer and social worker, argued that a Chief Minister facing allegations of financial impropriety should not be allowed to continue holding public office.
Yadav’s plea contended that Kejriwal’s continued tenure as Chief Minister would obstruct due legal process, disrupt justice, and potentially undermine the constitutional machinery of the state. He raised concerns regarding Kejriwal’s ability to fulfill the duties outlined in Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of his current incarceration.
Arvind Kejriwal, who is presently in ED custody, is scheduled to appear before the Rouse Avenue Courts later today as his custody period expires.
Yadav’s PIL further highlighted assertions made by ministers of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the media, indicating Kejriwal’s intention to retain his position as Chief Minister, even if it means governing from within the confines of a prison cell.
The petitioner argued that a Chief Minister in jail would be unable to effectively carry out official duties, and any communication or material reaching Kejriwal would require thorough scrutiny by prison authorities, potentially breaching the oath of secrecy mandated for the Chief Minister under the Constitution’s Third Schedule.
Yadav sought the court’s intervention through a writ of Quo Warranto, questioning the authority under which Kejriwal continues to hold office, and subsequently urging for his removal.
Interestingly, Yadav has also filed another PIL aimed at preventing Kejriwal from issuing directives or orders while in ED custody. However, this particular plea is yet to be listed for hearing.
