As Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal remains in custody of the Enforcement Directorate, a new Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against him has put his position as Delhi's Chief Minister under threat once again. The Hindu Sena filed a petition in the Delhi High Court on Friday, seeking Kejriwal's removal from the CM post, LiveLaw reported.
The petition by the Hindu Sena calls for the court to direct Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena to remove CM Arvind Kejriwal from office. It also advocates for the central government to administer Delhi through LG rule.
On Thursday, the Delhi High Court scrapped a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from his position as Chief Minister of Delhi. The court ruled out any scope for judicial intervention in the matter.
Despite this, Kejriwal and AAP ministers have reiterated their stance that the Chief Minister will continue to govern Delhi even while in custody, going as far as issuing a public welfare order this week.
The latest PIL, filed by Hindu Sena president Vishnu Gupta, argued that the Constitution did not envision a scenario where the Chief Minister could effectively run the government from either judicial or police custody.
“The parliamentary democracy is the basis feature of the Indian Constitution and Chief Minister being the head of the State Government he is repository of constitutional responsibilities and trust. If the Chief Minister acts in a manner which offence rule of law and commits breach of the constitutional trust reposed in him,” the plea was quoted by LiveLaw in its report.
It stated: “In that eventuality his dismissal from the Office of Chief Minister is inhibited in Article -164 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Respondent No.4 is guilty of breach of constitutional trust for allegation of corruption and consequently his arrest.”
Additionally, the petition highlights that since Arvind Kejriwal's arrest on March 21, the Delhi Government has not been fulfilling its responsibilities under Articles 154, 162, and 163. It points out that no Cabinet Meetings have been convened to provide assistance and advice to the Governor in the execution of his executive duties.