Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 24387
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, ACJ, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM, J
SANDEEP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-5135/2024
Mr. Nitin Meshram, Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Mr. Saurabh Singh, Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Sahaj Karan Singh, Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Mr. Akhil Hasija, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Vikramaditya
A Public Interest Litigation seeking Quo Warranto against a Chief Minister is not maintainable if similar petitions have been previously dismissed, and the court cannot interfere in the functioning of the Chief Minister.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 239AA, 167(b), and 167(c) - Public Interest Litigation seeking Writ of Quo Warranto against the Chief Minister of Delhi - The petitioner contended that the Chief Minister's incarceration incapacitated him from fulfilling his constitutional duties. The court found the PIL not maintainable due to prior dismissals of similar petitions and ruled that judicial interference was unwarranted. (Paras 1, 5, 10)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that it cannot remove or dismiss a Chief Minister in writ jurisdiction, as this is a matter for other state organs to address. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to dislodge the Chief Minister from office, claiming incapacity due to incarceration. The court noted the petitioner's awareness of previous dismissals of similar PILs.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the PIL, stating it was misconceived and frivolous, ordering costs to be paid to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund.
Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the PIL and the constitutional obligations of the Chief Minister while incarcerated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the PIL was not maintainable due to prior dismissals and that it could not interfere in the functioning of the Chief Minister.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.
ORDER
10.04.2024 Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Mr. Nitin Meshram, Mr. Rishi Raj Singh and Mr.
Saurabh Singh, ..... Respondents Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Narayan, Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Mr. Sahaj Karan -1 Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Apoorv Kurup, CGSC Mr.
Vikramaditya, April, 2024.
SINGH ARORA W.P.(C) 5135/2024 MANMOHAN, ACJ
1. The present Public Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show by what authority, qualification and title, he holds the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and inquiry to dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect.
2. At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about the orders dated 04th April, 20243 passed by this Court relief. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity.
3. He states that Respondent No.1 while lo incapacity to carry out his Constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and hence he can no longer function as the Chief Minister Governor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence of access to the Chief Minister.
1 W.P.(C) 4578/2024 2W.P.(C) 4642/2024 3 W.P.(C) 4904/2024 JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL) ublic Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show by what authority, qualification and title, he holds the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or without retrospective effect.
At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if he is aware about the orders dated 28th March, 20241, 01st April, 2024 passed by this Court dismissing PILs seeking identical . In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity.
He states that Respondent No.1 while lodged in jail has incurred incapacity to carry out his Constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and hence he can no longer function as the Chief Minister of Delhi. He states that the Lieutenant vernor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence of access to the Page 2 of 5 has been filed seeking Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show by what authority, qualification and title, he holds the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution and, after an dislodge him from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi with or At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner if April, 20242 and PILs seeking identical . In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that he is aware about the said orders; however, he states that the Petitioner herein is entitled to maintain the present PIL in his independent capacity.
dged in jail has incurred incapacity to carry out his Constitutional obligations and functions under Articles 239AA (4), 167(b) and (c) of the Constitution and hence he can no . He states that the Lieutenant vernor is also prevented from discharging his Constitutional obligations under Article 167(c) of the Constitution due to the absence of access to the W.P.(C) 5135/2024
4. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in of T.N. and Another4 this Court in exercise of its wr
