The Delhi high court on Thursday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal from the Delhi chief minister's post following his arrest in an excise policy-linked money laundering case and said it cannot declare a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the national capital.
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said the petitioner did not show any legal provision prohibiting the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader from running the government after his arrest to warrant any judicial interference and the executive would step in if there is a constitutional failure.
"There may be difficulties. It will be practically very very difficult. We accept all those. (But) Is there any scope for judicial interference in this, on this issue?" the bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet P S Arora, asked the petitioner's counsel.
"This court in writ jurisdiction cannot remove or dismiss respondent no. 4 (Kejriwal) from the post of chief minister of the government of NCT of Delhi or declare a breakdown of the constitutional machinery.... It is for the other organs of the State to examine the said aspect in accordance with law. The present writ petition is dismissed," the court said.
It clarified that it has not commented on the merits of the issue.
Petitioner Surjit Singh Yadav's counsel argued that Kejriwal's arrest adversely affected the Delhi government's credibility in the eyes of the public and his continuation as chief minister would obstruct the due process of law and lead to a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the capital.
Justice Manmohan said the court does not impose president's or governor's rule and it is for the executive to look into the issue.
"You have to show us that there is any bar or prohibition which prevents him from continuing as chief minister. If there is a constitutional failure, the president or the governor will act on it. We will not act on it," the court told the petitioner's counsel.
"The LG (lieutenant governor of Delhi) has to consider, the president of India has to consider and the council of ministers will consider. They know how to do it. They know how to operate the constitutional provisions. We do not impose president's rule or governor's rule," it said.
Stating that the executive might take some time to arrive at a conclusion with respect to the situation, the court remarked that probably, the current scenario was not envisaged.
"There is no legal bar that you are able to show us. Let the executive branch examine," it said.
The petitioner relied on Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules to state that if a chief minister is in custody, the state government cannot function.
The rule seeks to regulate the communications and meetings of a prisoner with family members, relatives, friends and legal advisers.
In his plea, the petitioner had said the Centre, the Delhi government and the principal secretary to the LG should be asked to explain under what authority Kejriwal is holding the chief minister's post.
The AAP national convenor, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 and subsequently, remanded in the agency's custody initially till March 28 by a court, faces allegations of direct involvement in a conspiracy related to the formulation of the excise policy for the capital, favouring specific individuals.
The court extended Kejriwal's ED custody till April 1 on Thursday.
