Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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