‘Plea for publicity, deserves to face heavy costs’: Delhi HC on petition to remove Kejriwal from CM’s post

Division bench headed by acting chief justice to hear plea on April 10

Arvind Kejriwal (File) Arvind Kejriwal leaves in a car after attending the hearing at a Delhi court | AP

The Delhi High Court referred a plea seeking to remove Aam Aadmi Party leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from the post to a division bench headed by acting chief justice, and said, the petitioner deserves to face heavy costs. 

Hearing a plea by former AAP legislator Sandeep Kumar seeking the removal of Kejriwal from the CM’s post and issuing a quo warranto against him, Justice Subramonium Prasad asked how could a quo warranto writ be issued against the CM. Referring the case to a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Prasad observed the plea was filed just for publicity. The division bench had dismissed two similar petitions earlier.

Kumar’s plea sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Kejriwal by calling upon him to show by what authority, qualification and title he is holding the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi, LiveLaw reported. Plea seeks to dislodge Kejriwal from the CM post.

In his petition, Kumar has said that after Kejriwal's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi excise policy-linked money laundering case, the leader has incurred an "incapacity" to carry out the chief minister's functions under the Constitution. 

Kejriwal was arrested by ED on March 21 in a money laundering case registered in connection with the alleged liquor policy scam. The Delhi CM has been remanded till April 15. 

 The high court had earlier rejected two PILs seeking Kejriwal's removal from the chief minister's post. On April 4, a bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora refused to entertain a PIL on the issue, saying it was Kejriwal's personal choice to continue as the chief minister.

 Earlier, the bench had dismissed a similar PIL, observing that the petitioner had failed to show any legal bar that prohibited the arrested chief minister from holding office. It had observed that there was no scope for judicial interference in the matter and that it was for the other organs of the State to look into the issue. 

-with inputs from agencies.

Join our WhatsApp Channel to get the latest news, exclusives and videos on WhatsApp