The Delhi High Court recently made a significant decision, dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought extraordinary interim bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in all criminal cases.
The court, led by the Acting Chief Justice, stated that it lacked the authority to grant such bail in pending criminal cases against a person holding high office. Kejriwal, currently in custody due to a judicial order, has already challenged his arrest before the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the law applies equally to everyone.
Moreover, the court imposed a cost of Rs 75,000 on the petitioner and directed that the amount be deposited with AIIMS-related funds. It deemed the petitioner's claims as fanciful and lacking in substance.
The PIL argued that Kejriwal's physical presence is necessary round-the-clock to fulfil his duties as the Chief Minister of Delhi. It highlighted the challenges of making decisions and conducting inspections from jail or judicial custody. However, the court found no merit in these arguments.
Additionally, another PIL was filed seeking arrangements for Kejriwal to interact via video conferencing with assembly members and cabinet ministers. It also requested the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to restrain the media from airing misleading reports about imposing president's rule in Delhi.
Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed three more PILs seeking Kejriwal's removal from office. One petitioner, a former Cabinet Minister of Delhi, was fined Rs 50,000 and warned against further frivolous petitions. The court expressed dissatisfaction with attempts to politicise the judiciary.
Furthermore, an ex-minister from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Government and former MLA filed a petition seeking Kejriwal's removal from office. The petition alleged that Kejriwal became ineligible for the position of Chief Minister after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi excise policy case.
Kejriwal was arrested on March 21, and his judicial custody was extended until April 23. The Enforcement Directorate accused the AAP of being a major beneficiary of proceeds from an alleged liquor scam.
Follow us
