HC rejects plea seeking Kejriwal’s removal as CM

THE DELHI High Court Thursday refused to entertain a PIL petition seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal as chief minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the nowscrapped excise policy case.

The petition has been moved by one Vishnu Gupta, the president of an organisation named Hindu se na, alleging that the chief minister was arrested by the ED in connection with an offence under the PM LA and so is“guilty of breach of constitutional trust for allegation of corruption and consequently his arrest.”

During the hearing, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Man mo han and justice man meet 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 area 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 soughtKejriwal’ s removalas cm ), he“has instructions to withdraw” the present PIL and “file a representation before the Hon’ble LG”.

Thehc, 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)w as 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 ina separatepetition moved by ones urj it Sing hy a dav seek in gkejriwal’ 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”.

Gupta’s counsel argued that Kejriwalh ad breached the constitutional trust. The bench then or ally said ,“constitutional morality is being considered by L-G. They have to consider it and the President of India... Everything cannot be done by courts. We do not administer the state… Let democracy take its course...”

Petitioner can raise the issue before another forum, says High Court