The Delhi High Court, on the onset of the week, voiced its discernment regarding a petition aimed at the ousting of Arvind Kejriwal from his incumbency as the chief overseer, citing it as a mere spectacle for garnering attention, and proposed imposing substantial penalties upon the petitioner. Justice Subramonium Prasad articulated this stance whilst transferring the petition, initially brought forth by former AAP legislator Sandeep Kumar, to the purview of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, where analogous pleas had been previously deliberated upon.

“This ostensible litigation appears to be a mere ploy for attracting public attention,” Justice Prasad remarked. “Given the prior disposition of akin cases by the Acting Chief Justice, it is prudent to enlist this petition for adjudication before the bench presided over by the same,” he further remarked. Upon the transference of the petition, Justice Prasad indicated a predisposition towards imposing significant penalties, expressing, “I would have been inclined to levy substantial penalties.”

In his plea, Kumar contended that following Kejriwal’s apprehension by the Enforcement Directorate in relation to a case of financial malfeasance intertwined with the Delhi excise policy, the said leader had become incapacitated to discharge the functions vested in the chief overseer under the constitutional framework. The petition underscored that the unavailability of the AAP luminary further complicates the constitutional apparatus, positing that his incumbency from within the confines of a correctional facility is incongruent with the constitutional mandate.

“The Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution delineates the authority of the Council of Ministers, helmed by the chief overseer, to provide counsel and recommendations to the lieutenant governor in the exercise of his prerogatives concerning subjects within the purview of legislative authority,” the petition expounded. “The provision of counsel and recommendations to the lieutenant governor is virtually impracticable sans the presence of the chief overseer as a free agent, available to proffer his guidance and recommendations as enshrined in the Constitution,” it elaborated.

The petition beseeched the issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Arvind Kejriwal, the incumbent chief overseer of Delhi, summoning him to justify his authority, qualifications, and entitlement to the office of the chief overseer under Article 239AA of the Constitution and, subsequent to an inquiry, to divest him of the said office, with or without retroactive effect.

The matter is slated for adjudication on April 10. Kejriwal, who was placed under arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21, remains in judicial custody until April 15, presently confined within the precincts of Tihar jail.

Previously, the high court had dismissed two public interest litigations (PILs) seeking the removal of Kejriwal from his incumbency as chief overseer. On April 4, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P S Arora declined to entertain a PIL on the subject, asserting that Kejriwal’s continuance in office was a matter of personal discretion.

In a prior instance, the bench had rebuffed a similar PIL, contending that the petitioner had failed to delineate any legal impediment precluding the detained chief overseer from continuing to hold office. It underscored the absence of scope for judicial intervention in the matter, positing that it fell within the ambit of other state organs to address.