The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking release of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extraordinary interim bail” in all the criminal cases registered against him, and imposed a cost of Rs 75,000 on the law student for moving such a petition. The court noted that no one is above the law and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief is in judicial custody by virtue of court orders.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The petitioner told the court that as there is no person to look at the problems of the public, this is an extraordinary situation. "I am seeking extraordinary interim bail for him till completion of tenure."
Kejriwal is in judicial custody in connection with ED’s money laundering case related to the now scrapped Delhi Liquor Policy.
The PIL was filed by a law student in his fourth-year of graduation, under the name “We the people of India”. He told the court that he has used the title as he does not want any fame or gain from the case.
Arvind Kejriwal's Lawyer Opposed PIL Seeking 'Extra-Ordinary Interim Bail'
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra appeared for Kejriwal and said that the said PIL is a completely misguided one and the petitioner has no business filing such a plea. Mehra termed the prayers in the PIL as "completely impermissible prayers."
The counsel appearing for the PIL began his argument in court saying, "What is India? This land, or this infrastructure? My answer is no. The Preamble says, I am India. "
To this, the court asked: "You're India?"
The petitioner's counsel replied: "The citizens."
'Law Is Above You'
The High Court told the petitioner that Kejriwal has said he is taking steps in the proceedings and he doesn't need any help of yours. "He is satisfied."
"Who are you to help him? Are you a member of the United Nations that you got the veto power?" The bench remarked.
However, unhinged by Kejriwal's lawyer's submission, the petitioner's counsel persisted: "I am not in collaboration with any party till today. My only concern is, 3 crore people who are residents of Delhi...What about their children? Medicine and education? This is an extraordinary condition. CM is not available. I am also a registered voter in Delhi."
To this, the bench remarked: "Law is above you? Law is common for all. Law is the same for everyone."
The petitioner's counsel continued his arguments, saying the CM is not available to sign documents or give approval for medicines. "This is the first time in India and the world that a person who is chief executive is in confinement. Why should the citizens suffer due to confinement? Till today no one has decided he is guilty."
Kejriwal's lawyer however intervened and said that the petitioner's father is elected as president of a political party and he is making the court a political platform.
While hearing the arguments, the bench had to ask the counsel for the petitioner if his client (as a law student) has good attendance in law school.
"It seems he does not follow principles of law," it remarked.
The court further said that given the petitioner's logic there should be no undertrial in custody. The high court again reiterated its earlier stance and said, "We have said earlier, at times personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest. It is the personal call of the Chief Minister."
The court rejected the plea and said that this court is of the view that the petition is not maintainable as Kejriwal is in judicial custody under judicial orders.
"Further, this court in writ jurisdiction can't grant extraordinary interim bail in pending cases initiated against a person holding high office."
The court said that it is important to remember that the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India and the rule of law be ever so high, the law is above you.
"This court is of the view that the petitioner's claim to be the custodian and representative of people of India is devoid of any basis...Kejriwal is in judicial custody and has the means to approach court and file appropriate proceedings which in fact he has done before this court as well as the Apex Court. Accordingly, no relaxation of the principle of locus standi is called for."