Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent judicial verdict, the Delhi High Court unequivocally rejected a petition filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) member Sandeep Kumar, seeking ousting of Arvind Kejriwal from his post as Chief Minister. The court, deeming Kumar's plea frivolous, imposed a consequential fine of Rs. 50,000.

Kumar's contention challenging Kejriwal's eligibility subsequent to his arrest was met with a resolute response from the court. The presiding judge questioned the unprecedented nature of judicial interference in governance affairs, highlighting the absence of precedent for removing a sitting Chief Minister or any other authority without a conviction order. Expressing exasperation at the recurring surge of such petitions, the court warned of imposing substantial costs to deter similar filings in the future.

The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, voiced frustration at the incessant influx of such petitions. ACJ Manmohan remarked, ‘We will impose some cost on you, and the only way we will take care of these petitions coming every day. This is not a James Bond movie where sequels will be released’.

During the proceedings, Advocate Nitin Meshram representing Kumar sought to justify the plea, stressing the importance of a Chief Minister's ability to aid and advise the government. However, the court promptly dismissed the argument, reaffirming its reluctance to engage in political matters. The court sternly rebuked efforts to entangle the judiciary in political considerations, emphasizing the imperative to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

The court sternly cautioned against efforts to politicize legal matters, emphasizing the imperative to refrain from dragging the judiciary into the realm of political maneuvering. With unwavering conviction, the judiciary urged all parties to respect the sanctity of the legal process, warning against any actions that would diminish the judiciary's credibility or turn it into a subject of ridicule. The bench underscored that while Sandeep Kumar might harbor political interests, endeavoring to embroil the court in such matters was unacceptable.

Initially the plea was listed before Justice Subramonium Prasad. He had recognized the repetitive nature of such petitions and commented, ‘This is just for publicity’. He had directed the case to be listed before the bench headed by the Acting Chief Justice, citing similar matters that had been disposed of previously. Following the transfer of the petition, Justice Prasad had indicated that heavier costs would have been imposed had the case remained under his jurisdiction. 

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v Arvind Kejriwal (W.P.(C) 5135/2024)