TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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