'Not A James Bond Film': Delhi HC Junks 3rd Plea Filed To Remove Kejriwal From CM's Post, Imposes Rs 50K Cost

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday slammed the former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi

The court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Kumar for moving the plea despite previous court orders on the matter.

Source : PTI

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday slammed the former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Sandeep Kumar for filing a petition seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi. The court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on Kumar for moving the plea despite previous court orders on the matter.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that this is the fourth litigant seeking such a relief. "We told you it is not a James bond film that will keep having sequels," the bench remarked.

The court asked the petitioner's counsel to show one instance where a high court or the Supreme Court have removed a chief minister. The court further said that the petitioner is trying to drag the court into a political thicket.

The court further told Kumar that if he wants to make a political speech, he can go to a corner of the road and do that. The court further told the counsel appearing for Kumar that "It is because of people like your client that we are reduced to a joke."

The court had earlier said that it is for the Exeutive to decide and there is no legal bar on Kejriwal continuing as Chief Minister from judicial custody. In the last hearing the court said that it is Kejriwal's personal call if he wishes to continue on the post of chief minister, but sometimes personal interest must be subordinated to national interest.

Sandeep Kumar moved a writ petition before the Delhi High Court to remove Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister of Delhi, following his arrest in the Delhi Liquor Policy case. In his petition, Kumar has stated that "Right to have a government in accordance with the Constitution is a Constitutional Right of every citizen and voter."

Kumar claimed that as he is a voter of NCT of Delhi, he has a constitutional right to have a government as provided by the Constitution and anything otherwise violates his Constitutional Right to have a representative government with the Chief Minister at the head of the Council of Ministers to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor (Article 239AA(4)).

Previously, the bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan had rejected two pleas seeking Kejriwal's removal from the post saying that it is for the executive to take a call and there is no scope of judicial interference here. The bench had observed that as such there is no legal bar on Kejriwal continuing on post of chief minister from judicial custody.

Kumar however has not moved PIL. He has moved the court under the writ jurisdiction by filing a quo warranto petition. He has sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto against Kejriwal by calling upon him to show by what authority he is holding the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi.

Kumar, a lawyer by profession, claims to be a social worker and a founding member of AAP.

In the previous hearing, while disposing of a plea seeking the removal of Kejriwal from CM's post, the high court bench had remarked that it is Arvind Kejriwal's personal call if he wants to resign or not, but sometimes personal interest should be subordinated to national interest.