Delhi HC refuses to entertain plea seeking Kejriwal’s removal as CM

During the hearing, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh orally remarked, “…At times, personal interest will have to be subordinate to the national interest but that is his (Kejriwal’s) personal call. If he doesn’t want to do that, that is up to him. We are a court of law. Give us any citation where President’s rule or Governor’s rule has been invoked by the court… Your (petitioner’s) remedy does not lie here, it lies with some other authority. You go there. There is no scope for the judiciary to interfere in this.”

After some argument, Gupta’s counsel said that in view of the bench’s March 28 observations made in a separate petition (which also sought Kejriwal’s removal as CM), he “has instructions to withdraw” the present PIL and “file a representation before the Hon’ble LG”.

The HC, thereafter, disposed of the petition. It further clarified that it has “not commented on the merits of the proposed representation” which may be filed by the petitioner.

“The rights and contentions of all parties are left open,” the bench said.

During the hearing, Gupta’s counsel argued, “I’m on the lack of government in the NCT of Delhi. There is a constitutional deadlock created after the evening of March 21 when he (Kejriwal) was arrested… on Article 160 (Discharge of the functions of the Governor in certain contingencies) of the constitution. Therefore, (the) mandamus is maintainable. The contingency in the article has arisen here. (The) Governor is competent to remove this contingency. As a citizen, I’m entitled to have a government.”

The bench, however, said that courts cannot look into this issue, observing that the petitioner can raise it before another forum.

“The LG is fully competent to decide it… There is a discretion vested in the LG and with the President. They can take a call. Let’s not anticipate that they won’t discharge their functions… Court’s don’t remove a Chief Minister,” the bench said orally.

The bench further said that it had already taken a view in a separate petition moved by one Surjit Singh Yadav seeking Kejriwal’s removal as CM, and so it can’t take a different view now.

“There also has to be some certainty in courts. It can’t be that one day we take one view and another day we take another view,” the bench said.

The bench had on March 28 dismissed Yadav’s plea while observing that there is “no scope for judicial interference” and that it was for the “other organs of the state to examine the said aspect in accordance with law”.

Meanwhile, Gupta’s counsel argued that Kejriwal had breached the constitutional trust. Responding to this argument, the bench orally said, “Constitutional morality is being considered by LG. They have to consider it and the President of India. They are the authorities. Everything cannot be done by courts. We do not administer the state… Let democracy take its course. It will take its own time to reach a conclusion and it will reach a conclusion. We have no doubts about it. It will take a right turn.”

Kejriwal was arrested on March 21. On April 1 he was remanded in judicial custody till April 15 by Rouse Avenue Court. On April 3, a single judge bench of the HC had reserved its verdict in the CM’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED.