A petition filed in the Delhi High Court seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the position of Chief Minister has drawn criticism from the court, with Justice Subramonium Prasad remarking that it was filed for “publicity” and suggesting heavy costs for the petitioner.
The petition, filed by former AAP MLA Sandeep Kumar, raised concerns about Kejriwal’s ability to carry out his duties as Chief Minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy. The petitioner argued that Kejriwal’s “unavailability” due to incarceration hindered the constitutional mechanism.
Justice Prasad, while acknowledging the petition, transferred it to the court of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, where similar matters had been heard earlier. He criticized the petition as a publicity stunt and suggested that heavy costs should be imposed on the petitioner.
The petition invoked Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution, which outlines the role of the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister in aiding and advising the Lieutenant Governor in matters within the legislative assembly’s purview. It sought a writ of quo warranto against Kejriwal, questioning his authority to hold office under Article 239AA.
The matter is scheduled for a hearing on April 10, with Kejriwal currently in judicial custody until April 15. The high court had previously dismissed two PILs seeking Kejriwal’s removal, citing his personal choice to continue as Chief Minister and the absence of legal barriers to his holding office despite his arrest.
The Delhi High Court’s criticism of the petition underscores the complexities of legal challenges against public officials and highlights the ongoing debate over the intersection of legal proceedings and political responsibilities in India’s governance framework.
Sources By Agencies
