Not Bond movie, don’t involve us: HC rejects 3rd plea on CM removal

THE DELHI High Court on Wednesday dismissed a third petition seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal as the Delhi Chief Minister after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the now-scrapped excise policy case. Pulling up the petitioner, former AAP cabinet minister Sandeep Kumar, the court said that it cannot be involved in a “political thicket”.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in its order, said: “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the present pi li snot maintain able in view of the earlier orders passed this court, dismissing PILS seeking identical relief.”

The filing of the present petition by Kumar, the bench said, “despite being aware of the dismissal of three earlier PILS seeking identical reliefs” is evidence of the fact that Kumar had filed the plea to “gain publicity”. The PIL is “misconceived” in view of the court’s earlier orders, the bench added. Dismissing the petition, the bench directed Kumar to deposit Rs 50,000 (costs) with the Delhi HC Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Meanwhile, Kumar’s counsel argued that the plea involved the Constitution’ s interpretation so far as the qualification of the CM is concerned. “He (Kejriwal) is not qualified to hold the post after he has been lodged in the jail. There are duties and powers of the CM which are required to be performed,” said Kumar’s counsel.

The bench asked the counsel whether the SC or any HC has removed any CM.

“...We will impose costs on you, 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. Please see we have made our mind very clear, we have specifically said that this is not like a James Bond film where we will have sequels. This matter is done and dusted with,” said the bench orally.

“...Do not make a political speech over here. Go to a corner of the street and do it over there. Your client may be a politician and he may like to be involved in politics, but we are not involved in politics. Don’t involve us in political thicket, we have told you we have passed an order...,” said the bench orally.