Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Apr 2024W.P.(C)/5135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, Acting Chief Justice Arora dismissed a petition seeking Quo Warranto to remove the Chief Minister of Delhi. The Court held the petition non-maintainable due to earlier dismissals on identical grounds and flagged the filing as frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~54

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5135/ 2 024

¶4

SANDEEP K U MAR ..... P etitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Meshram, M r. Rishi Raj Singh and Mr. S a urabh Singh, Advocates versus ARVIND KEJ R IWAL & ORS. ..... Respo n dents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Narayan, M r. Prateek K. Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and M r. Sahaj Karan Singh, Advocates for R - 1 Mr. Chetan Sharma, A SG with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC Mr. Akhil Hasija, Mr. Amit Gup t a, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi and Mr. Vikramaditya, Advocates for R-2

¶5

% Date of Decision: 10^th A p ril, 2024.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶7

O R D E R % 10.04.2024

¶8

Signature Not Verified

¶9

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

W.P.(C) 5135/2024

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)

¶14

The present P u blic Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Responden t No. 1 to show by what authority, q u alification and title, he holds the offi c e of the Chief Minister of Delhi u n der Article 239AA of the Constitutio n and, after an inquiry to dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister o f Delhi with or without retrospective effect.

¶15

At the outset, i t has been put to the learned counsel for t he Petitioner if he is aware about th e orders dated 28^th March, 2024¹ , 01^st A pril, 2024² and 04^th April, 2024³ passed by this Court dismissing PILs s e eking identical relief. In reply, lear n ed counsel for the Petitioner fairly a d mits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain t h e present PIL in his independent capacit y .

¶16

He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged in ja i l has incurred incapacity to carry o ut his Constitutional obligations and f unctions under Articles 239AA (4), 1 67(b) and (c) of the Constitution and h ence he can no longer function as th e Chief Minister of Delhi. He states tha t the Lieutenant Governor is also prevented from discharging his Constituti o nal obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence o f access to the Chief Minister.

¶17

1 W.P.(C) 4578/2024

¶18

2W.P.(C) 4642/2024

¶19

3 W.P.(C) 4904/2024

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

W.P.(C) 5135/2024

¶24

He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another⁴ to contend that a writ of Quo Warranto c an be issued by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶25

Having heard t h e learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that the present PIL i s not maintainable in view of the earlier o rders passed by this Court dismissin g PILs seeking identical relief. In this r egard, we may refer to our order dat e d 28^th March, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 4578/2024, which reads as under:

¶26

“1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto c alling upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to ju s tify under what authority Re s pondent No. 4 is continuing to hold the po s t of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi and to further remove R espondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of D elhi.

¶27

2. Learned couns e l for the Petitioner states that the conti n uance of Respondent No. 4 a s the Chief Minister of Government of NCT of D elhi after his arrest by the E nforcement Directorate in the money laund e ring case relating to the alle g ed liquor policy scam has degraded the cre d ibility and image of Govern m ent of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of general p ublic. He states that the cont i nuance of Respondent No. 4 as Chief Minister h as lead to breakdown of Cons t itutional machinery in the State.

¶28

3. He contends tha t with the Chief Minister in custody, the State G o vernment cannot function. In support of his contention, he relies upon Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which reads as under:-

¶29

“Every prisone r shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeking o r communicating with, his family members, relatives, friends and leg a l advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or f o r arranging the m a nagement of his property and family affairs

¶30

He shall be allo w ed to have interviews with his family members, relative s , friends and legal advisers twice in a week. A prisoner may be allowed t o work any numb e r of letters at his cost, however government will provi d e four post cards i n a month, if he so desires. ”

¶31

4. Having heard th e counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the paperbook, this Court is of the view that there is no scope for judicial i n terference in the present ma t ter. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot r emove or dismiss Responden t No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister of the G o vernment

¶32

4(2001) 7 SCC 231 at para 59

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

W.P.(C) 5135/2024

¶37

of NCT of Delhi or declare breakdown of constitutional machi n ery in the State. It is for the other organs of the State to examine the sai d aspect in accordance with la w . This Court clarifies that it has not commente d upon the merits of the allega t ions.

¶38

5. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dism i ssed.”

¶39

The filing of t h e present PIL by the Petitioner despite being aware of the dismissal of thr e e earlier PILs seeking identical reliefs is sufficient evidence of the fact t h at the Petitioner has filed this PIL to gai n publicity. 7. The Supreme C ourt as early as in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B .⁵ and in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors.⁶ has t a ken note of the menace of filing of t h e frivolous PILs and cautioned against entertaining of such PILs. In our opinion, present PIL is misconceived in vi e w of the earlier orders passed by this Court.

¶40

The frivolity o f the PIL is also evident from the fact th a t the Petitioner has placed reliance u pon the judgment of Supreme Court in B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (supra) to maintain the PIL desp i te being aware that the facts of the said case were completely distinguisha b le. In the said case, the Respondent - Chief Minister on the date of her sweari n g in as a Chief Minister stood disqu a lified, by reason of her conviction unde r the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1 9 88 and the sentence of imprisonment o f not less than two years, for becom i ng a member of the legislature under Se c tion 8(3) of the Representation of P eople Act, 1951 (‘Act of 1951’). A dmittedly, the Respondent No.1 her e in has not suffered any disqualification u nder the Act of 1951.

¶41

5 (1987) 2 SCC 295 para 59

¶42

6 (2004) 3 SCC 363 para 12 a n d 14

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

W.P.(C) 5135/2024

¶47

With respect t o the submission of the Petitioner that t h e incarceration of the Chief Minister has led to difficulties in functioning of t he Government and the Lieutenant G o vernor, this aspect as well was also duly considered and opined upon by this Court vide order dated 28^th March, 2 0 24 in W.P.(C) 4574/2024.

¶48

With the afore s aid observations, the present writ petiti o n is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,0 0 0/- to be deposited with Delhi High Co u rt Staff Welfare Fund (Account N o :- 15530110074442, IFSC Code:- U CBA0001553, Branch:- Delhi High C ourt) within four weeks.

¶49

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶50

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶51

APRIL 10, 2024/ hp/ m s

¶52

Signature Not Verified

¶53

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:10.04.2024 19:56:22

¶54

Page 5 of 5

¶55

W.P.(C) 5135/2024

Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Susheel Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Mamta Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) 28 Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Preeti Gupta Vs Acit Central CIRCLE-25 Delhi

Mohan Chauhan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Dulal Ghosh & Ors. Vs Mother Diary Fruit and Vegetable Private Limited

Salim Ahmed Vs Talagang Co-Operative Group Housingh Society and Anr.

M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & Anr.

Navita Arjun Vohra Vs Nitin Arjun & Anr.

Manjri Choudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sameer Khullar Vs Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Action for Vigilance and Knowlege for Empowerment (a.v.a.K.E) Vs Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors.

Surender Singh Deswal Vs Delhi Development Authority

National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences Vs Dr Aditya Lal Vallath & Anr.