District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Persistent Filing of Identical PILs for Publicity Evident Frivolity; High Court Imposes Cost of Rs. 50,000/-: Delhi HC Dismisses Quo Warranto Against CM Arvind Kejriwal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Writ of Quo Warranto against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The petition aimed to question Kejriwal’s authority to hold office due to his current incarceration.

The court centered its judgement on the maintainability of such a PIL, having previously dismissed similar petitions. The petitioner contended that Kejriwal’s incarceration rendered him incapable of performing his constitutional duties, thus justifying his removal from office.

The key issue revolved around whether the Chief Minister’s incarceration led to a constitutional breakdown and incapacitated him from fulfilling his duties. The petitioner referred to the precedent set in the case of B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. for support. However, the court found this analogy inapplicable, as Kejriwal has not been disqualified under the Representation of People Act, 1951, unlike the respondent in the B.R. Kapur case.

Repeated Dismissals of Similar PILs: The court highlighted that the petitioner, aware of previous dismissals of similar petitions, nonetheless pursued this PIL, indicating a possible motive for publicity.

Frivolous Nature of the PIL: Citing earlier Supreme Court warnings against frivolous PILs (Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India), the court deemed the current PIL as misconceived and frivolous.

Misplaced Reliance on Precedent: The court noted the petitioner’s misplaced reliance on the B.R. Kapur judgement, stating that the current facts were distinguishable and did not warrant a similar outcome.

Inability to Declare Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery: The court reiterated its inability to intervene in executive functions or declare a constitutional breakdown, as requested in the PIL.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund, underscoring the serious repercussions of misusing the PIL system for publicity.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

SANDEEP KUMAR v. ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS.

Latest Legal News