The Delhi High Court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to remove Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said the decision whether to continue as the CM or not had to be Kejriwal's personal call. It added that therefore “let democracy take its own course”.
The court further observed, "At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. But that is his (Kejriwal's) personal opinion. If he does not want to do that, it's up to him. We are a court of law. Do you have any precedent of president's rule or governor's rule being imposed by the court?" the Bench asked.
It then told the counsel that his remedy lies elsewhere and that he should approach the constitutional authorities. The court pointed out it is up to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (LG) or the President of India to take a call on the issue.
This is a practical, not a legal issue. We won't go into this...The governor is fully competent. He does not need our guidance. He has the discretion to take the call. Let's not think that they won't discharge their functions. We can't venture into this," the bench said. "How can we declare that the government is not functioning? The LG is fully competent to decide it. He (LG) does not need our guidance. We are no one to advise him. He will do whatever he has to in accordance with law," the court said.
The Bench, while refusing to venture in the matter, observed that “the Governor is fully competent” and “does not need our guidance”. It added that he possesses the “discretion to take the call”. The Bench also noted that as far as the issue of “constitutional morality” was concerned it would have to be considered by the LG. “He will consider it and the President,” it said, adding that “they are the authorities” and that “everything cannot be done by the courts”.
At this the counsel for Gupta said he would like to withdraw the PIL and file a representation with the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The petition filed by Vishnu Gupta, who is the president of an organisation named Hindu Sena, had sought removal of Kejriwal citing his arrest in the money laundering case connected to the Delhi excise policy scam.
During the course of the hearing, the Bench also reminded the petitioner that another Bench of the court had also dismissed a similar PIL seeking removal of Kejriwal from the post and so it could not take a different view. The judges held that there needs to be “some certainty in courts” and that a precedent once laid has to be followed. “It cannot be that one day we take one view and another day we take a different view,” it reasoned.
The earlier PIL seeking removal of Kejriwal as CM was filed by one Surjit Singh Yadav, but it too was dismissed by a bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora on the ground that there was no scope of judicial interference in the matter and that “it is for the other wings of the government to examine in accordance with the law.”
"If the Chief Minister acts in a manner which offends a rule of law and commits breach of the constitutional trust reposed in him. In that eventuality his dismissal from the office of Chief Minister is inhibited in Article 164 of the Constitution of India, that PIL had argued. It stated that apart from Kejriwal being in custody of investigating agency, the provision of Articles 154, 162 and 163 are not been carried out by the Government of NCT of Delhi with effect from March 21, as no cabinet meetings are taking place to aid and advice the Governor in exercise of his executive functions.
