In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition contesting the apprehension of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to the excise policy scandal, deeming it unsustainable.
The court noted that Kejriwal possesses the necessary means to approach the judiciary and initiate proper legal proceedings. It emphasized that the petition’s call for the Center to disclose the arrest of a political figure to the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the enactment of the model code of conduct (MCC) reveals a lack of legal comprehension regarding the rule of law.
It deemed the current writ petition, which essentially challenges the detention of AAP’s national convenor, legally inadmissible as the individual in question is in judicial custody pursuant to court orders, which are not within the scope of the petition.
The petition notably omits to explicitly name the individual, although their identity is implied through references to their political stature, according to a bench comprising acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora.
While the ruling was issued on May 1, the detailed verdict was released on Friday. The court found no merit in the petition, deeming it frivolous and seemingly filed with the intention of gaining public attention.
The bench dismissed the petition, asserting that petitioner Amarjeet Gupta, a law student, lacks the legal standing to seek relief on behalf of the detained individual. It recalled a previous similar public interest litigation (PIL) dismissed by the court with costs, stating that the petitioner lacked standing to seek relief concerning criminal proceedings against Kejriwal.
The court further emphasized that according to the law, any individual arrested by law enforcement must be presented before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, and continued detention is permissible only with the magistrate’s authorization.
In this instance, the individual in question (Kejriwal) was duly presented before the competent court after arrest and remains in judicial custody as per court orders. Therefore, the demand for separate information to the ECI lacks rationale and undermines existing legal safeguards, the court remarked.
Regarding the request for ECI to establish a policy allowing arrested political figures to campaign virtually during elections, the bench noted ignorance of existing rules in the jail manual governing the rights of undertrial prisoners.
The court reiterated that it does not issue directives of a legislative nature unless there is a legal vacuum. It critiqued the petition for disregarding the doctrine of separation of powers and seeking legislative directives beyond the purview of judicial review. Additionally, it clarified that the ECI lacks jurisdiction over the rights of undertrial prisoners in judicial custody.
Although inclined to impose costs on the petitioner, the court exempted Gupta from costs upon the counsel’s plea, considering his student status.
Previously, the court rejected a petition seeking permission for arrested political figures to campaign virtually for the Lok Sabha elections, noting the potential for notorious criminals to exploit such allowances.
The petitioner expressed discontent with the timing of political arrests, particularly that of the AAP national convener after the implementation of the MCC following the EC’s announcement of Lok Sabha polls scheduled for March 16.
Kejriwal was apprehended by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy. The petitioner argued that voters are deprived of their fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by being unable to witness election campaigning while politicians are in custody.
“It deprives political party leaders of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental and legal right to campaign during elections,” the petition stated.
