X: @the_news_21
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the position of Delhi Chief Minister. The court emphasized that there is no legal basis for judicial intervention in the matter and underscored the executive’s prerogative in such cases.
The PIL, filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, a Delhi resident identifying as a farmer and social worker, sought Kejriwal’s removal from office following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy Case. Yadav argued that Kejriwal’s continuation as Chief Minister would obstruct due process of law, disrupt the course of justice, and potentially lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.
However, the high court, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, dismissed the PIL, stating that there is no legal impediment barring Kejriwal from continuing in his role as Delhi CM. The court asserted that it is not within its purview to interfere in matters concerning the executive, emphasizing that such decisions are for the executive branch to determine.
Addressing the petitioner’s contentions, ACJ Manmohan remarked, “Show us, where is the prohibition? Show us any legal bar which you’re canvassing.” He reiterated that decisions regarding the tenure of the Chief Minister fall under the executive’s domain and not within the judiciary’s jurisdiction.
While rejecting the PIL, the court clarified that if there were any constitutional failures, it would be the responsibility of the President or Lieutenant Governor to address them, ruling out the possibility of the court advocating for the imposition of President’s rule.
Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial restraint and refraining from engaging in political matters, reaffirming that decisions pertaining to leadership positions are best left to the executive to decide.
The PIL, filed under Article 226, sought the court’s intervention through a writ of Quo Warranto, challenging Kejriwal’s authority to hold the position of Chief Minister. However, the court concluded that there were no grounds to question Kejriwal’s authority based on the allegations presented in the petition.
