Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to curtail media coverage and public discourse regarding the resignation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the potential imposition of President's Rule in Delhi.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rebuked Advocate Shrikant, contending that the PIL sought to stifle political dissent, a matter beyond the purview of the court. The court remarked, "What do we do? Impose emergency? Impose censorship or martial law? What do we do? How do we pass gag orders against the press and political rivals?… how do we do that?".

Initiated by Advocate Shrikant Prasad, the PIL highlighted the purported bias of the media against the Delhi government and accused it of interfering in the democratic process. He argued that the Delhi government's efforts had earned a commendation from international media and reputable institutions.

Moreover, Advocate Prasad aimed to restrain BJP Delhi president Virendra Sachdeva from pressuring Kejriwal into resigning through protests or statements. He alleged that Sachdeva's protests disrupted public peace and traffic flow. 

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma representing the Union of India contended that the petition was devoid of merit and motivated by ulterior motives. 

However, the court observed that as Kejriwal had already approached the supreme court regarding his arrest, which was under consideration for interim release, the issues raised in the petition were moot. While acknowledging Delhi's advancements in education and healthcare over the past seven years, the court deemed the proposed extreme measures unjustified in the current scenario.

The court underscored its inability to censor the media or silence political adversaries advocating for Kejriwal's resignation. It highlighted the impracticality of imposing martial law to suppress dissent and stressed the significance of freedom of speech.

Concerning the legality of governance from jail, the court noted the absence of explicit prohibition in the Constitution or any law. However, it questioned the petitioner's plea for a gag order against the press, emphasizing the judiciary's role in safeguarding press freedom under Article 226.

The court reiterated that since the supreme court was deliberating on Kejriwal's release, the demands of the petition were premature.

Case Title: Shrikant Prasad v Government of NCT Delhi