In New Delhi, there exists no constitutional or statutory prohibition preventing imprisoned Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from maintaining his position, however, the practicality of governing from confinement is exceedingly challenging, as suggested by legal scholars on Monday. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Kejriwal was remanded to judicial custody until April 15th on Monday.

The assertions of legal scholars align with the observations of the Delhi High Court on March 28th, when it dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking Kejriwal’s removal from the chief ministerial office subsequent to his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The high court stated that no legal provision exists to necessitate the AAP leader’s removal from governance post-arrest, thereby precluding judicial intervention, with executive authorities poised to act in cases of constitutional breakdowns.

In response to inquiries regarding Kejriwal’s ability to persist as chief minister during his judicial custody, senior advocate Ajit Sinha remarked, “While the Constitution lacks explicit provisions barring an individual from continuing as chief minister post-incarceration, its practical feasibility is dubious.” Senior advocate and former SCBA president Vikas Singh echoed these sentiments, asserting that numerous aspects remain unaddressed by the Constitution, rendering governance from confinement arduous.

Kejriwal would be compelled to procure court and administrative approval for each administrative action proposed as the administrative head. Notably, convening a cabinet meeting in prison is unattainable, Sinha asserted, emphasizing the impracticality of governing from confinement.

Sinha cited the example of RJD president Lalu Prasad, initially entertaining the notion of governing from jail, only to designate his spouse Rabri Devi as successor subsequently. He emphasized the implausibility of executing routine administrative tasks such as cabinet deliberations, document signings, and transfers within the confines of a penitentiary.

“The summoning of cabinet meetings within a prison environment would leave the state directionless in the absence of the presiding CM. Each administrative endeavor necessitates court clearance, a virtually insurmountable challenge,” Sinha remarked.

Furthermore, Sinha noted that the framers of the Constitution did not anticipate a sitting CM’s imprisonment, hence the absence of relevant provisions. While senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan posited that no legal impediment exists to a chief minister’s continuation post-arrest, Vikas Singh contended that administrative barriers render it virtually untenable.

In response to queries regarding Kejriwal’s continuation as chief minister post-arrest, Sankaranarayanan stated, “There exists no legal prohibition against a chief minister’s continuation post-arrest.” He elaborated, citing the Representation of the People Act, which disqualifies an MLA solely post-conviction, thus technically enabling functioning from incarceration.

Kejriwal’s arrest by the ED in a money laundering case related to excise policy on March 21st, following the Delhi High Court’s denial of protection against coercive action by the central agency, culminated in his judicial custody until April 15th. Despite his incarceration, Kejriwal has refrained from resigning from the chief ministerial post, with the AAP affirming his continuance regardless of his jail term’s duration.