Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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