The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed its dissatisfaction with the repeated filing of petitions seeking the removal of AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal from the position of Chief Minister after his arrest. The plea was filed by former AAP minister Sanjay Singh.
The court remarked that once it had addressed the issue and determined it to fall within the executive domain, there should not be any “repeat litigation,” comparing it to a movie franchise with sequels.
The bench orally remarked, “This is the third round we are dealing with. Tell us how much costs…We will impose costs on you now because you are now persisting with it…this is the only way we will take care of these petitions which are coming up on a daily basis…this is not like a James Bond film where we will have sequels. This matter is done and dusted with.”
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan rebuked petitioner Sandeep Kumar, a former AAP MLA seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal for attempting to entangle the court in a “political thicket.” The court announced it would impose a fine of Rs 50,000 on him.
Also Read: After High Court setback, Arvind Kejriwal moves Supreme Court
The bench reiterated that it lacked the authority to impose governor’s rule in the capital. It criticized the petitioner for “making a mockery of the system” and decided to levy the fine.
Earlier this year, the court dismissed a PIL seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal, stating that there was no legal bar prohibiting him from holding office after his arrest. It clarified that such matters were beyond judicial interference.
On Wednesday, Kumar’s counsel argued that the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case rendered him unqualified to hold office. Justice Manmohan responded that if there were grievances, they should have appealed against earlier decisions instead of filing multiple petitions.
The court admonished the petitioner’s lawyer for engaging in political rhetoric, emphasizing that the court stays out of politics. It warned against reducing the court to a joke and imposed costs to deter future repetitive litigation.
Kumar’s petition was transferred to the bench after Justice Subramonium Prasad labeled it as seeking “publicity” and suggested imposing heavy costs. The petition argued that Kejriwal’s arrest complicated the constitutional mechanism, rendering him incapable of functioning as Chief Minister from prison according to the Constitution.
Read all the World News, Business News, Sports News, Entertainment News, Business News and Opinion here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
Did you know The Theorist also has a WhatsApp channel? Click here to follow us on WhatsApp
