The Delhi High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the potential arrest of Arvind Kejriwal as not maintainable. The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, stated that Kejriwal has the means to approach the court and has done so in the past.
NEW DELHI: On 2nd May: The Delhi High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition challenging the arrest and judicial custody of Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi and National Convener of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The court observed that Kejriwal is in jail as per court orders and, therefore, the PIL is not maintainable.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal: “Was With Parents When ED Arrived, Surprised by Arrest Timing”
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, stated that Kejriwal has the means to approach the court and has done so in the past.
Kejriwal was produced before the court following this procedure, and his continued judicial custody is in accordance with the court’s orders.
The Court noted that the current writ petition, challenging the arrest of the AAP National Convenor on March 16, 2024, is not maintainable. This is because the individual in question is already in judicial custody as per existing judicial orders, which are not within the scope of this petition. Despite references to the person’s political position, the petition fails to name them explicitly. It is acknowledged that the individual has the resources to approach the Court independently, as they have done so previously in both this Court and the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO: [BREAKING] Delhi Court Extends Arvind Kejriwal, K Kavitha’s Judicial Custody till May 7
The High Court emphasized
According to the law, anyone arrested by a law enforcement agency must be presented before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. In the case of Kejriwal, he was indeed brought before the Court following his arrest. The Court reiterated that further detention of the arrested individual is only permitted upon obtaining orders from the Magistrate. Therefore, Kejriwal, after being arrested, was appropriately brought before the competent Court and remains in judicial custody in compliance with the Court’s orders.
The PIL was filed by a law student named Amarjeet Gupta, who sought directions from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to establish a mechanism allowing undertrial political party leaders or candidates to campaign through virtual conferences.
Gupta also requested the Union of India to promptly inform the ECI about the arrest of a political party leader or candidate when the model code of conduct is in effect. Gupta argued that Kejriwal’s arrest had deprived the voters of Delhi of their right to access information from him during the ongoing election campaign.
However, the court dismissed the PIL, stating that it lacked legal understanding and was ignorant of the doctrine of separation of powers. The bench highlighted that the directions sought were of a legislative nature and lay outside the purview of judicial review.
READ ALSO: [BREAKING] Delhi Excise Policy Case|| Arvind Kejriwal to be Held in Tihar Jail Number 2
Furthermore, the court clarified that the ECI does not have jurisdiction over the rights of undertrials in judicial custody. The bench considered the PIL frivolous and filed to gain publicity. Although the court was inclined to impose costs, it exempted the petitioner from paying them due to Gupta being a student.
In a detailed order posted on the Court’s website on May 2, the Bench remarked that the petitioner’s request for the Central government to inform the Election Commission of arrests of political leaders during the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) period reflects a misunderstanding of legal principles.
“The petition demonstrates ignorance of the doctrine of separation of powers and seeks directives of a legislative nature, falling beyond the scope of judicial review. Moreover, the Election Commission does not possess jurisdiction over the rights of undertrials in judicial custody.”
The Court criticized the PIL as frivolous and driven by a desire for publicity.
“While considering imposing costs, the petitioner’s counsel requested exemption due to the petitioner’s status as a student. Consequently, the petition lacking merit is dismissed,” concluded the Bench.
Case Title: Amarjeet Gupta v Election Commission of India & Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
