Kejriwal, Sisodia Challenge Privileges Committee's Jurisdiction in 'Phansi Ghar' Row Before Delhi High Court

New Delhi – Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy, Manish Sisodia, have escalated the political and historical controversy surrounding the "phansi ghar" (execution chamber) into a significant legal battle, petitioning the Delhi High Court to quash summons issued by the Delhi Legislative Assembly's Privileges Committee. The case, titled ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ANR v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, NCT OF DELHI & ORS , places the jurisdictional limits of legislative committees and the scope of judicial review squarely before the court.

The petition, scheduled for a hearing before Justice Sachin Datta, challenges the legality of the committee's inquiry into the authenticity of a structure inaugurated by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in August 2022. The AAP leaders contend that the proceedings are a "colourable exercise of legislative power," tainted by procedural illegalities and constitutional infirmities, and fundamentally beyond the committee's remit.

Background of the Controversy

The dispute originates from the inauguration of a renovated space within the Delhi Assembly complex on August 22, 2022. The then-ruling AAP government, led by Kejriwal, presented the site as a restored British-era "phansi ghar." The renovation included murals of freedom fighters, symbolic iron bars, and a pair of nooses to evoke the atmosphere of a colonial execution cell, intended as a memorial to the sacrifices of the freedom struggle.

However, following a change in the political landscape, the current BJP-led administration has contested this historical narrative. The new government asserts that the structure was merely a service staircase or a tiffin-room. During an Assembly session in September, Speaker Vijender Gupta alleged that the Kejriwal government had misappropriated approximately ₹1 crore in public funds to "fabricate" a historical site and promote a false narrative.

This led to the matter being taken up by the Assembly's Privileges Committee, headed by BJP MLA Pradyumn Singh Rajput. The committee issued notices and subsequently summons to Kejriwal and Sisodia to appear and assist in "verifying the authenticity of faansi ghar."

Core Legal Arguments in the High Court Petition

The petition filed by Kejriwal and Sisodia mounts a multi-pronged legal challenge against the Privileges Committee's proceedings, arguing that they are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction and procedural non-compliance.

1. Lack of Jurisdiction and 'Colourable Exercise of Power'

The central pillar of the AAP leaders' argument is that the Privileges Committee has overstepped its constitutional and statutory mandate. Their plea asserts that the committee’s function is to investigate breaches of privilege or contempt of the House, not to conduct historical or architectural authentications.

The petition argues, "the legislature may have powers to set up committees to inquire into matters to inform legislation or for public oversight, but the brick and mortar design and restoration in premises of the Delhi Legislative Assembly is neither to inform legislation nor for public oversight."

By tasking itself with verifying the "authenticity of the historical facts," the petitioners claim the committee is engaging in a function that is entirely foreign to its purpose. They describe the inquiry as a "colourable exercise of legislative power," suggesting that the committee's proceedings are a politically motivated attempt to scrutinize the actions of a previous government under the guise of a privilege inquiry.

2. Procedural Illegalities and Non-Adherence to Assembly Rules

The petitioners have highlighted significant procedural lapses, claiming the committee has failed to follow the mandatory framework laid out in the Delhi Legislative Assembly Rules. The plea explicitly states that the procedures prescribed under Rules 66, 68, 70, 82, and Chapter XI, which govern the functioning of the privileges committee, have been bypassed. They argue that the proceedings were not initiated based on any formal complaint, report, or motion alleging a specific breach of privilege or contempt, which they contend is a prerequisite for the committee to assume jurisdiction.

A key grievance raised is the committee's alleged failure to consider their detailed replies to the initial notices. The plea states, "Even though the Petitioners had replied to the notice dated 09.09.2025, the same has not been duly considered and the notice for sitting summons dated 04.11.2025 makes no reference to the objections or grounds raised by the petitioners in their respective replies." This, they argue, points to a pre-determined course of action and a lack of due process.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights

Invoking the Constitution, Kejriwal and Sisodia claim the committee's actions infringe upon their fundamental rights. The petition contends that the proceedings are arbitrary and discriminatory, thereby violating Article 14 (Right to Equality). Furthermore, they argue that being subjected to an inquiry that lacks legal authority and procedural fairness is an infringement of their rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The plea explicitly states the proceedings "violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and are liable to be quashed."

4. Scrutiny of a Preceding Assembly's Actions

An underlying constitutional question is whether a legislative assembly can use its committees to retroactively investigate and pass judgment on the executive decisions made during the tenure of a previous assembly, particularly when the issue does not pertain to a direct breach of privilege against the current House. The petition notes that the controversy was raised in the 8th Legislative Assembly, several months after the dissolution of the 7th Assembly during which the inauguration took place. This raises complex questions about legislative continuity, political accountability, and the potential for partisan misuse of committee powers.

Implications for Legislative Privilege and Judicial Intervention

This case presents a classic test of the boundaries between legislative autonomy and judicial review. While courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the internal proceedings of a legislature, they have consistently held that this immunity is not absolute. Judicial intervention is warranted when legislative actions are alleged to be unconstitutional, procedurally ultra vires, or in violation of fundamental rights.

The Delhi High Court will need to carefully weigh the principle of legislative privilege against the petitioners' claims of jurisdictional error and constitutional infirmity. The outcome could have significant precedential value, further delineating the powers of legislative committees and clarifying the circumstances under which a court can scrutinize their functioning. For legal practitioners, the court's decision will be a crucial marker in the ongoing discourse on the separation of powers and the accountability of legislative bodies.

As the matter comes up for hearing, the legal community will be watching closely to see whether the judiciary will step in to halt the Assembly's inquiry or allow its internal processes to run their course, leaving the petitioners to challenge any final adverse finding at a later stage.