Delhi HC rejects PIL to disqualify Kejriwal, Sisodia from elections
text_fields
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the de-registration of the Aam Aadmi Party and the disqualification of its leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections over their alleged refusal to participate in proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia termed the petition “highly misconceived” and declined to entertain it.
“Having heard the parties, we are of the view that the PIL is highly misconceived,” the bench observed while rejecting the plea filed by petitioner Satish Kumar Aggarwal.
During the hearing, the court repeatedly questioned the maintainability of the petition and asked the petitioner to point out any statutory provision empowering the Election Commission of India to de-register a political party under such circumstances.
“You are asking us to direct the Election Commission to de-register a party. Is there any provision for the de-registration of a political party?” the bench asked.
The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment and argued that a political party could be de-registered in certain situations, including when it is declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
However, the court noted that the present case did not fall under any recognised grounds for de-registration.
“It is not the case that the party obtained registration through fraud or amended its rules in violation of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act. Nor is it a case where the party has ceased to have faith in the Constitution,” the bench said.
The judges further asked whether the Aam Aadmi Party had been declared unlawful under the UAPA or any similar law. When the petitioner admitted that it had not, the court observed that allegations of scandalising the judiciary would instead fall under the Contempt of Courts Act.
“If someone is found to have scandalised the court, the remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act. Even if convicted, where is the provision barring such a person from contesting elections?” the bench remarked.
The petitioner eventually conceded that no specific legal provision existed to support the relief sought in the PIL.
The petition had argued that the alleged refusal of AAP leaders to appear before Justice Sharma showed a lack of “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution” as required under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
It further alleged that the conduct of Kejriwal, Sisodia and other party leaders undermined the authority and dignity of the Delhi High Court, warranting the de-registration of the party and their disqualification from elections.
The High Court, however, dismissed the plea in its entirety.
With IANS inputs