Delhi High Court: A PIL was filed by Surjit Singh Yadav calling upon the Respondent 1 to 3 to justify under what authority Arvind Kejriwal (Respondent 4) is continuing to hold the post of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi and to further remove Respondent 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi. A division bench of Manmohan, ACJ., and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., dismissed the petition and held that it is for the other organs of the State to examine the said aspect in accordance with law.
A public interest petition was filed by the petitioners questioning the authority under which Arvind Kejriwal (Respondent 4) continues to hold the position of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioners have raised concerns about the credibility and image of the Delhi government due to the continued tenure of Respondent 4, particularly after their arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case related to an alleged liquor policy scam.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the continued presence of Respondent 4 as Chief Minister, despite being in custody, has led to a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State. The counsel cited Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, to highlight that a prisoner, including the Chief Minister, is entitled to certain facilities for communication with family, legal advisers, and for managing personal affairs. The Counsel implied that the Chief Minister’s detention impedes their ability to effectively discharge their duties, thereby affecting the functioning of the State Government.
The Court concluded that judicial intervention in the matter is not warranted as it does not have the authority to remove or dismiss Respondent 4 from the position of Chief Minister or declare a breakdown of constitutional machinery. The Court, however, suggested that such matters should be addressed by other organs of the State in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that its decision to dismiss the petition does not imply a judgment on the merits of the allegations against Respondent 4.
Thus, the court dismissed the present writ petition, emphasizing it lacks jurisdiction to act against Respondent 4.
[Surjit Singh Yadav v. UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2157, decided on 28-03-2024]
Image Source: Instagram
