'Grant bail, let him run government': Petitions after Arvind Kejriwal's arrest

Ever since Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested in the Delhi excise policy case and chose to retain his post as CM while in custody, numerous petitions seeking various remedies have been brought before the Delhi High Court.

All kinds of petitioners, including law students and politicians, brought forth a range of petitions to the court, some in support of Kejriwal, and others against him.

advertisement

The Delhi High Court dealt with a range of petitions – some seeking to remove him as Chief Minister, while others pleading for exceptional interim bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief.

Despite the court's stinging remarks and fines imposed in three instances, nothing has deterred the petitioners from approaching the court on the subject of Kejriwal’s arrest.

The spectrum of cases evoked equally colourful reactions from the high court: from labelling the petitions as ‘publicity litigation’, to ‘it’s not a James Bond film that sequels could keep coming in’, and ‘the court will not be dragged into the political thicket’.

So much so that, Arvind Kejriwal’s legal team itself opposed one such plea seeking bail for the CM, terming it an "ambush", "publicity litigation" and "politically motivated".

While the court did not impose costs on the first two litigants, it later observed that imposing costs is the only way to deal with such petitions coming before the court every other day.

Let’s have a look at the cases filed in the context of Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest in the alleged liquor policy scam, and the high Court’s response to them:

THE FIRST PETITION

Back in March, when the first plea seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister of Delhi was filed, the high court promptly dispatched it into the dustbin.

The court, while dismissing the plea moved by one Surjit Singh Yadav, a Delhi resident, said there was no scope for judicial interference on the subject.

Dismissing the plea, Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Manmohan, said, "Is there any scope for judicial interference in this? We read today's newspaper. The Lieutenant Governor (VK Saxena) is examining the issue. It will go to the President. It belongs to a different wing. It may be very, very difficult, but that is a practical difficulty.”

"The executive branch will look into this aspect. But how does the court look into this? They will arrive at a conclusion. They may take some time. There is no legal bar, you can show us," the ACJ said.

THE SECOND PETITION

advertisement

In April, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain the second petition seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal, after his arrest, as Delhi CM, saying it was his personal call whether to continue in the post.

"We are a court of law. Do you have any precedent where the President's rule or Governor's rule has been imposed by the court?" the bench asked.

The petition was filed by Vishnu Gupta, a social worker and national president of the Hindu Sena. Gupta subsequently withdrew his petition and said that he would make a presentation before Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor.

THE THIRD PETITION

When a third such plea was filed, the Delhi High Court remarked "heavy costs should be imposed" against former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Sandeep Kumar, who moved the court seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister.

During the hearing, Justice Subramoniam Prasad criticised the petitioner and called his plea a "publicity interest litigation".

When a bench led by the Acting Chief Justice later heard the case, the court had come down heavily on the former MLA, and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him.

THE FOURTH PETITION

advertisement

The Delhi High Court later also dismissed a PIL seeking the release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on "extraordinary interim bail" in all criminal cases against him.

However, the PIL seeking bail for Kejriwal was opposed by the Delhi Chief Minister himself, who termed it an "ambush". Kejriwal's counsel further disparaged the petition as "publicity litigation" and "politically motivated".

A division bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and including Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed the writ petition and also imposed a cost of Rs 70,000 on the petitioner.

"Petitioner’s claim of being representative of the people of India is nothing but a fancy play devoid of any basis," the bench said.

THE FIFTH PETITION

On May 8, while saying that it would impose costs of Rs 1 lakh, the court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to restrain media channels from creating pressure and airing sensational headlines on unfounded claims regarding the resignation of CM Kejriwal and the imposition of President's Rule in Delhi.

“You think courts impose censorship? You are asking for a gag order against the press. What do we do? Impose emergency? Impose censorship? Impose Martial Law? How do we gag the media? Can we pass gag orders saying don’t make statements about this person or that person?” the court remarked.

The plea, filed by Advocate Shrikant Prasad, also sought directions to provide adequate facilities for Arvind Kejriwal in Tihar Jail to enable him to interact with his cabinet members and members of the legislative assembly for the efficient functioning of the Delhi government.