[BREAKING] Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Arvind Kejriwal's Release, Imposes Rs 75,000 Costs On Petitioner

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Delhi High Court unequivocally rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition demanding the release of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The court also levied a hefty fine of Rs 75,000 on the petitioner for what it deemed a frivolous and baseless plea.

[BREAKING] Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Arvind Kejriwal's Release, Imposes Rs 75,000 Costs on Petitioner — [BREAKING] Delhi HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Arvind Kejriwal’s Release, Imposes Rs 75,000 Costs on Petitioner

NEW DELHI: Today (22nd April): The Delhi High Court rejected a plea seeking the release of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extraordinary interim bail” in all ongoing criminal cases filed by the Enforcement Directorate and the State until the end of his tenure.

The court ruled that the plea, filed by a fourth-year law student under the name of ‘We the People of India’, was not permissible as courts, in their writ jurisdiction, do not have the authority to grant extraordinary interim bail to individuals holding high office.

The plea had argued that Kejriwal’s safety was compromised as he was being held in Tihar Jail alongside dangerous criminals facing charges of rape, dacoity, murder, and bomb blasts.

Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, representing Kejriwal, dismissed the PIL as “completely impermissible” and “misguided,” accusing the petitioner of using the court as a political platform. Mehra further noted that the same bench had previously dismissed similar pleas seeking the removal of the Chief Minister upon his arrest, with the most recent dismissal incurring a cost of Rs 50,000.

Background

The petitioner, whose identity remains undisclosed, approached the Delhi High Court seeking Kejriwal’s immediate release. The PIL argued that Kejriwal’s detention was unlawful and violated his fundamental rights.

The ED lodged a complaint against Kejriwal on February 3, 2024, with a magisterial court due to his repeated non-appearance before the agency. Following this, on February 7, 2024, the magisterial court summoned Kejriwal in response to the ED’s complaint.

In February 2024, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued multiple summonses to Kejriwal, scheduling his appearances on February 19, February 26, and March 4. The situation intensified on March 7, 2024, when a magisterial court summoned Kejriwal again based on a new complaint by the ED, alleging that he had ignored the earlier summonses.

Despite Kejriwal’s efforts to challenge the proceedings, the sessions court refused to stay the proceedings against him for skipping the summonses on March 15, 2024. However, on March 16, 2024, the magisterial court granted bail to Kejriwal in response to the ED’s complaints after he finally appeared before it.

Upon hearing the arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the PIL, concluding that there was no merit in the petitioner’s claims. The court determined that Kejriwal’s detention was carried out in accordance with the law and based on valid grounds.

The court emphasized that the right to protest is not absolute and must be exercised within the limits prescribed by law. It further stated that the authorities have the responsibility to maintain law and order and can take appropriate action to prevent any disruption or violence during public demonstrations.

On March 21, 2024, Kejriwal filed a petition with the Delhi High Court, contesting his arrest by the ED and the trial court’s decision to place him in the agency’s custody. However, on April 9, 2024, the High Court rejected Kejriwal’s plea against his arrest, thereby affirming the actions taken by the agency.

The court has imposed a cost of Rs 75,000 on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition. The imposition of costs is aimed at discouraging the filing of baseless PILs and serves as a deterrent against wasting the court’s time and resources.

The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide any substantial evidence or legal grounds to support the claim of unlawful detention. The imposition of costs is expected to act as a deterrent and ensure that PILs are filed only when there is a genuine public interest at stake.

The court reprimanded the petitioner, questioning his commitment to legal principles, and asked

if he had “maintained good attendance in law school.”

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan stated,

“It appears that the petitioner does not adhere to the fundamental principles of law.”

While dictating the order, the court remarked that

the petitioner’s claim to be the custodian and representative of the people of India lacks any foundation.

The court further expressed surprise at the petitioner’s offer to provide a personal bond on behalf of Kejriwal and ensure that he would not influence witnesses. It emphasized that the petitioner does not possess the power of attorney for Kejriwal, which would be necessary to make such statements or offer personal bonds.