Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

During the recent court proceedings, Arvind Kejriwal, through Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, termed a PIL seeking extraordinary bail for him as an ‘Ambush Petition’. Sr Adv Rahul Mehra characterized the plea as an unexpected maneuver, emphasizing that the Delhi Chief Minister was taking lawful measures to uphold and defend his legal entitlements. 

The PIL was dismissed with costs by the bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora on grounds of being “a fanciful claim which is devoid of any basis’.

The case stemmed from a public interest litigation filed by a fourth-year law student seeking ‘extraordinary interim bail’ for Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi. Advocate Karan Pal Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that due to the incarceration of Kejriwal, the administration of Delhi and its cabinet has come to a standstill and is like a ‘headless organization’. 

Emphasizing the protracted nature of trials, Advocate Singh further averred that incarcerating the Chief Minister for such duration would serve no purpose. The petitioner provided his personal bond with the assurance that Kejriwal ‘will not influence the witnesses involved, or try to destroy the evidence or try to flee from justice’ while asserting his alleged ‘veto power’. 

In the first instance, the court noted that the judicial orders under which Kejriwal was detained were unchallenged in the petition. The court noted that the petitioner lacked the ‘locus standi’ to file such a petition on behalf of Kejriwal or the people of Delhi. 

“The respondent no. 5 who is currently in judicial custody, has the means and the wherewithal to approach the Court and file appropriate proceedings, which in fact he has so done before this Court as well as the Apex Court. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no relaxation of the principle of locus standi is called for in the present case”, the bench further emphasized. 

The court opined that while exceptions exist for public interest cases, such exceptions are primarily to safeguard the rights of marginalized individuals. In this instance, Kejriwal, in custody, has the means to pursue legal action independently, the court added. 

“This Court is of the view that the petitioner’s claim to be custodian and representative of the people of India, is nothing but a fanciful claim which is devoid of any basis”, the bench further emphasized. 

Moreover, the court deemed it peculiar that the petitioner boasted of having been entrusted with ‘veto power’, which, according to him, was adequate to grant any concession to any accused upon arrest. 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition with Rs. 75,000 fine. 

Advocate for Petitioner: Advocate Karan Pal Singh
Advocates for CBI: Special Public Prosecutor Ripu Daman Bhardwaj with Advocates Abhinav Bhardwaj and K.Manaswini
Advocates for GNCT: Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi and Additional Standing Counsel Shadan Farsat with Advocates Rishikesh Kumar, Irshand, Tushar Sanna, and Mohit Bhardwaj. 
Advocates for Arvind Kejriwal: Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, with Advocates Talha Abdul Rehman, Hrishikesh Kumar, Sreekar Aechuri, Chaitanya Gosain, Adnan Bhat and Sahat Karan Singh.

Case Title: We, The People Of India v Union Of India