The Delhi High Court on Monday came down heavily on a former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA for filing a petition seeking removal of Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister of Delhi following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over his alleged involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad reprimanded petitioner Sandeep Kumar for filing a third plea, after knowing fully well that two similar petitions filed by others had already been rejected by the Bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan earlier.

Warning to impose heavy costs on the petitioner, the High Court said that the present plea was nothing but a publicity interest petition.

The single-judge Bench transferred the matter to the bench of the acting Chief Justice on the grounds that it had heard similar petitions before.

The current petition sought removal of Kejriwal from the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi, with or without retrospective effect.

It contended that though incapacitated, the national convenor of AAP continued to hold the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi, which not only raised several constitutional complications, but also violated the guarantee of the Right to Life of the people in Delhi.

Kumar sought a writ of quo warranto against the incumbent Delhi Chief Minister, calling upon him to demonstrate by what authority, qualification, and title he was holding the office of Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution.

Earlier on April 4, the High Court had refused to entertain a plea seeking direction to remove Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the plea lodged by Vishnu Gupta who is the president of an organisation named Hindu Sena.

The petitioner sought removal of Arvind Kejriwal mentioning his arrest in the money laundering case related to the Delhi liquor policy scam.

Dismissing the plea, the high court stated that it would be a personal call for Kejriwal whether to continue or not. The court added that at times personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest.

The court said that it cannot decide the issue and it is upto the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi or the President of India to take a call on the issue. Questioning how they can declare that the government is not functioning, the court mentioned that the LG is fully competent to decide. The bench further added that they are none to advise the Chief Minister and that he will do whatever he has to do in accordance with the law.

The High Court clarified that it will not interfere in the issue and petitioner’s remedy lies before the President of India or the LG. Therefore, the court said that the petitioner can reach the relevant authority. Subsequently, the petitioner withdrew the plea.

This is the second plea to remove Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Delhi Chief Minister. Previously, on March 28, the Delhi High Court had rejected a similar plea filed by Surjit Singh Yadav. The court had then said that it is for the executive and the President to examine the issue and the court cannot interfere with the same.

Ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, the Enforcement Directorate has arrested Delhi Chief Minister and Aam aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal on March 21 after questioning and searches in his residence in connection to liquor policy case. This is the first time that a sitting Chief Minister was arrested in the history of independent India.

The Delhi High Court will today hear a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and subsequent remand in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will hear the case at 10:30 am.

ED had arrested the Delhi Chief Minister from his residence on March 21, after questioning him for over two hours. He was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the Delhi liquor policy scam.

On March 22, Special CBI judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Courts sent Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28.

Appearing for the national agency, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju alleged that Kejriwal was the kingpin of the Delhi excise scam and was directly involved in the use of proceeds of crime accounting to over Rs 100 crore.

The ASG contended that even during the time of search on March 21, Kejriwal did not give correct facts.

The agency sought 10-day custody of the accused on the grounds that it needed confrontation to recover the money trail. It was a fit case to grant remand, said the ASG.

Three Senior Counsels- Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhary and Ramesh Gupta appeared for Kejriwal.

Singhvi submitted that till yesterday, in the proceedings before the High Court, ED did not disclose that Kejriwal was being probed as an accused in the case.

He submitted that the threshold for arrest under PMLA was very high.

Singhvi contended that ED failed to show the necessity to arrest the incumbent Chief Minister of the national capital, noting that there was no direct evidence.

The Delhi High Court on Saturday refused to hear on an urgent basis, the petition filed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate and ED remand in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case.

The matter was mentioned before the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, who refused to grant urgent hearing.

The petition will now be listed on March 27.

Earlier on March 23, Special CBI judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Courts sent Kejriwal to ED custody till March 28.

Appearing for the national agency, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju alleged that Kejriwal was the kingpin of the Delhi excise scam and was directly involved in the use of proceeds of crime accounting to over Rs 100 crore.

The ASG contended that even during the time of search last night, Kejriwal did not give correct facts.

The agency sought 10-day custody of the accused on the grounds that it needed confrontation to recover the money trail. It was a fit case to grant remand, said the ASG.

Three Senior Counsels- Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhary and Ramesh Gupta appeared for Kejriwal.

Singhvi submitted that till yesterday, in the proceedings before the High Court, ED did not disclose that Kejriwal was being probed as an accused in the case.

He submitted that the threshold for arrest under PMLA was very high.

Singhvi contended that ED failed to show the necessity to arrest the incumbent Chief Minister of the national capital, noting that there was no direct evidence.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arrested the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on March 21 from his residence after interrogating him for over two hours.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected the petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, seeking interim protection from arrest after skipping nine summons issued to him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy scam case.

The Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain noted that Kejriwal’s plea for interim protection will be heard on April 22 with his main petition challenging the ED’s summons.

The High Court said that it was not inclined to grant any such protection at this stage.

Appearing for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that ED’s latest summons was issued to him on March 16, the same date when the schedule for the Lok Sabha elections were announced.

He alleged that the probe agency was being misused to create a non-level playing field before the elections.

He argued that none of the ED’s summons clarified whether Kejriwal was being called for questioning as an accused or a witness.

He argued that the national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party was not a man who would flee or influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

He remarked that the triple test was satisfied, noting that elections have been announced and Kejriwal was the head of a national party. He was saying that he would answer all the questions and was ready to appear through a virtual conference or answer their questionnaire.

The Senior Advocate referred to certain orders of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts where interim protection from arrest was granted to people being probed by the ED.

Appearing for the national agency, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju contended that the law cannot be different for someone just because he happened to be the Chief Minister of a State.

Raju clarified that Kejriwal has not been summoned in his official capacity as Chief Minister or the National Convenor of AAP, but in his personal capacity.

The agency said there was a necessity to call Kejriwal for interrogation. ED cannot go beyond the law. The law was the same, whether someone was a Chief Minister or not. He was being called in his personal capacity, not as a Chief Minister or the chief of AAP.

A person who has no respect for the law was not entitled to any protection of the law, added the ASG.

He said that AAP was not even an accused in the case and, therefore, Kejriwal’s plea challenging those PMLA provisions which included a political party under the ambit of the money laundering law, was based on mere assumption

An application has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Delhi government for imposing a complete ban on manufacturing, storage, sale and bursting of firecrackers.

The petition has been filed by Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Executive Chairman of United Hindu Front; Subhash Chand, President of Khatik Charamkar Balmiki Sabha and one Meenu Verma through Advocate AP Singh.

The plea contended that the prohibition imposed on the purchase and sale of firecrackers and not giving licence to firecracker shops in Delhi was not only an attack on the religious tradition of bursting crackers on Deepawali, but also violated the Explosives Rules 2008.

On September 16, 2022, the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) had passed an order, stating that it was extending the ban on online sale of firecrackers.

As per the government order, the Delhi government has imposed a complete ban of the manufacturing, storage, selling (including delivery through online marketing platform) and bursting of all kinds of firecrackers up to January 1, 2023.

The petition alleged that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, without passing any official resolution, announced a ban on the sale, storage and distribution of firecrackers in Delhi.

It further alleged that the prohibition imposed by the Delhi government was in violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna on October 29, 2021.

The Delhi Police has also attacked the Hindu religion by not giving licences to firecracker shops. Not only have the firecracker shops been denied licences, but some of them were even closed down, claimed the petition.

It noted that the Delhi government was not only losing thousands of crores of revenue due to this ban, but crores of people were also becoming unemployed.

(Case Title: Arjun Gopal & Ors vs Union of India & Ors)

A Delhi Sessions Court on Wednesday quashed the petition filed by former Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash, challenging the clean chit given to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and nine other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs by a trial court in the case related to an alleged assault on him at the CM’s residence in 2018.

According to Prakash, the incident took place during a meeting at Kejriwal’s official residence on February 19, 2018. It triggered a bitter war between the bureaucracy and the Kejriwal-led Delhi government.

The bureaucrat had alleged on March 30 that Kejriwal and Sisodia were the ‘kingpins’ of a conspiracy that led to him being assaulted at the CM’s residence.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Prakash’s Counsel, said that the trial court erred in its judgement and that the Delhi government did not allow the police to file a revision petition against the order, despite a written request by the force.

As per the Counsel, both Kejriwal and Sisodia were the kingpins of the conspiracy, in which 11 specific MLAs were called at the Chief Minister’s residence at 12 midnight.

He said the meeting was specifically kept in the drawing room of the Chief Minister, where there were no CCTV cameras and not in the designated meeting room with CCTV cameras.

As per Prakash, the MLAs were asked to be present one hour before the arrival of the Chief Secretary and that the meeting was called “without any agenda, where officers/ministers concerned with the issue were specifically not called to maintain the secrecy”.

He said they have accepted the incident of physical assault upon the Chief Secretary now, but still denying the charges of conspiracy.

As per Luthra, “The Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and other discharged MLAs are making Amanatullah Khan and Prakash Jarwal scapegoats by contending that the trial court has rightly framed the charges against the two MLAs.”

Prakash had said in his complaint that he was summoned to Kejriwal’s residence at midnight to discuss the difficulty in releasing advertisements to mark the AAP’s three years in power.

The assault happened in the presence of the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and 11 other MLAs, with the intention to criminally intimidate and deter him from discharging his lawful duty, he added.

The Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh had filed a plea before the Delhi High Court challenging the door­step ration delivery scheme or the Mukhya Mantri Ghar Ghar Ration Yojana, touted by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as a visionary policy of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. They contended that the scheme is “ultra vires” (beyond one’s legal power or authority).

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh passed the verdict responding to the shop owners’ plea, saying that any such scheme framed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi should comply with all the requirements of the National Food Security Act (NFSA). The view of the Court was that the government is entitled to frame a scheme for the doorstep delivery of foodgrains or rations to the beneficiaries under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), but it has to be done from its own resources in compliance with prevailing laws.

The Court order said: “The Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister is bound to communicate its decisions/resolutions, including any such scheme or proposal to the Lieutenant Governor, so as to enable him to examine the same and to take a call on whether, or not, he has a difference of opinion with any such scheme.” The scheme was introduced in 2018, but could not be implemented due to a difference of opinion between the government and lieutenant governor.

While the scheme was set to be launched in March 2021, the provisions in the bill had become a contentious issue among the political parties. The argument was that the Delhi government had called it the “Mukhya Mantri Ghar Ghar Ration Yojana.” Days before its first scheduled launch, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs objected to the “Mukhya Mantri” part of the name. The issue revolved around the fact that Kejriwal’s state-specific food delivery scheme, which includes door­step delivery of packaged wheat flour, rice and sugar contested with the central government’s Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) and Priority Household (PHH) categories of the NFSA Act.

The High Court further noted that the Delhi government scheme does not comply with the provisions of the NFSA and TPDS Order, 2015. The Court also said that as the scheme was not approved by the lieutenant governor, it cannot be implemented in its present form. Delhi’s former Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had not given a green signal to the scheme and returned it for reconsideration.

The Delhi government, while supporting the scheme, had argued that “politics has taken over public interest” and termed the objections against it a “camouflage” and “egotistic”. Terming it a progressive scheme, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the government had said there was no explicit prohibition against it under the NFSA. “The scheme is optional in nature, and the people may opt for either home delivery of ration, or they may take ration from FPS,” the Delhi government told the Court.

NGO Bandhua Mukti Morcha, which had sought impleadment in the case, through its counsel Talha Rahman, had argued that requiring a person to stand in queue at the ration shop for receiving, what the law regards as his or her entitlement, is against the right to dignity and privacy. On this, the Court observed that it does not offend the right to dignity and privacy of any person, merely because the person may be required to queue up at the outlet. The outlet could be for anything, or for any service. People queue up to buy medicines from a medical store; to buy milk at the milk booth; bus, train and airline tickets at bus stations, railway stations and airports; to buy cinema tickets at cinema houses; to buy tickets for sporting and other entertainment events at the venues, so on and so forth.

The centre, while supporting the petitions, had argued that fair price shop owners form an integral part of NFSA and the scheme mitigates the architecture of the Act. “The state governments are at liberty to provide any other welfare-based entitlements, without disturbing or destroying the mandate of the NFSA,” Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued.

The central government had already maintained that subsidised foodgrains allotted under NFSA are not permissible to be used for the state government scheme. The centre also said that subsidised foodgrains allotted by it under the NFSA can’t be used in a scheme with a different name. Any changes/ amendments in the provisions of the Act, including nomenclatures used for distribution of NFSA foodgrains, can only be done through established parliamentary procedures.

Furthermore, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution pointed out that provision for household delivery of rations does not exist in NFSA 2013.

Last year, in October, Development of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD) had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the interim orders of the Delhi High Court which had allowed doorstep delivery of ration on a temporary basis. DFPD objected to the implementation of the Mukhya Mantri Ghar Ghar Ration Yojana, saying it would adversely impact numerous NFSA 2013 beneficiaries. It clarified that doing so will thereby create an opaque parallel scheme and will also affect the implementation of the One Nation One Ration Card plan in Delhi.

On November 15, the apex court had declined to entertain a petition by the centre and another by FPS owners against the Delhi High court’s interim order. However, in the latest ruling, the Court has now asked AAP to stop the scheme. The running battle between the central government and AAP has now acquired a legal dimension.

—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau

AAP MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj moved Delhi High Court against the vandalisation outside official residence of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal on March 30. The PIL seeks the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to undertake an independent criminal investigation in the incident.

The Petition has been filed by AAP MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj through Advocate Bharat Gupta.

The Petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of  Delhi, has filed this Petition in light of the attack on, and  vandalization of, the official residence of Chief Minister of  Delhi (“Delhi CM”) on March 30, 2022 by Bharatiya Janta Party  (“BJP”) goons, which attack appears to have been carried  out with Delhi Police’s (Respondent No1) tacit complicity.

This Petition seeks (a) constitution of a Special  Investigation Team (“SIT”) to undertake an independent,  fair and time bound criminal investigation with respect to the  attack and its perpetrators; and (b) appropriate directions for  ensuring the security of the Delhi CM’s person and residence  in future.

The petition said that, on March 30, 2022 several BJP goons, in the garb of a protest,  launched an attack on the official residence of the Delhi CM. Videos and photographs show that these goons casually  walked through the security cordon (maintained by Delhi  Police), kicked and broke the boom barrier, broke the  CCTVs cameras with lathis, threw paint on the gate of the residence and almost climbed over the gate, while Delhi Police personnel simply looked on, doing little to stop the  protestors.

Also Read: Chhattisgarh High Court closes PIL related to admission of ‘Pahadi Korwa’ community students in government school

While the Petitioner strongly supports the right to protest peacefully, even if such protest is against the Delhi Government, it is submitted that in the name of protest, violence cannot and ought not to be permitted and condoned.

In this case, the violence was especially egregious as it was directed towards the Delhi CM and his family. It was meant to subdue, by the use of force, the highest elected official in NCT of Delhi and therefore the elected Government of Delhi. This was a direct attack on democracy.

It is submitted that those who were charged with protection of the Delhi CM, i.e Delhi Police, completely abdicated their duty, without any regard for the fact that they were protecting an elected constitutional functionary and the fact that he was given Z+ security by Delhi Police itself.

Moreover, the Delhi Police’s inaction was in blatant violation of the Court’s order dated August 22, 2017, wherein the Delhi Police was directed to ensure that no unnecessary protest takes place on the road in front of the Delhi CM’s house, as it is a residential area.

Also Read: CJI launches FASTER, a software for safe and secure transmission of court orders

The Petitioner said that Delhi Police was hand in glove with the goons as the goons are members of the ruling party in the Central Government, which has absolute control over Delhi Police through the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Petitioner further said that, it is pertinent to note, that in the past as well, on December 10, 2020, there was an attack on the residence of the Deputy Chief Minister by BJP Goons, where also, Delhi Police did not take any steps to stop the attackers and thereafter failed to take any concrete criminal action against the attackers.

The petition further submitted that it is due to such inaction and complicity of the police, that BJP goons have become emboldened to carry out repeated attacks on the elected officials of the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Therefore, given the conduct of the Delhi Police till now and the fact that the Delhi Police is under the control of the Central Government, where BJP is in power, it is strongly apprehended that the Delhi Police will neither carry out an independent and fair criminal investigation against the BJP goons who attacked the Delhi CM’s residence on March 30, 2022 nor will it take any disciplinary action against its own officers who were responsible for maintaining the Z+ security cordon outside the Delhi CM’s residence.

Also Read: All India Quota Mop-Up Round Counselling for NEET-PG 2021-2022 admissions cancelled: Supreme Court

In light of this, the Petitioner is constrained to directly approach the Court seeking (a) constitution of an SIT headed by a retired Judge of the Court to undertake an independent, fair and time bound criminal investigation into the attack, including the role of Delhi Police’s officers who were responsible for maintaining the security cordon outside the Delhi CM’s residence; (b) directions for appropriate prosecution/action against the identified accused persons/culprits; and (c) direction to the Respondents to ensure appropriate security of the Chief Minister of Delhi’s person and his residence in future.

The Petition stated that the attacks on elected officials are becoming a routine affair. If the perpetrators of the attack are not brought to justice and if responsibility is not fixed on the errant officers of the Delhi Police, then the public will lose confidence in the rule of law and will lose its faith in the ability of the police to protect it against political violence.

A few days after Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal became the government of Delhi following the promulgation of the amended GNCTD Act, the L-G has tested positive for Covid-19.

Baijal took to Twitter to inform that he will continue to work and monitor the situation in Delhi while being isolated at his residence.

I have tested positive for COVID with mild symptoms. Have isolated myself since the onset of symptoms and all those who were in contact with me have been tested. Will continue to function and monitor the situation in Delhi from my residence,” he tweeted.

The L-G, along with his wife, had administered the first dose of Covid-19 vaccine at the Tirath Ram Shah Hospital in Delhi last month.They were due for the second dose of vaccine. Over the past few days, Baijal had held several meetings to discuss the raging Covid situation in Delhi. On April 19, the L-G had met Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to announce lockdown in the national capital. 

Meanwhile, the city has recorded 395 deaths due to coronavirus in the last 24 hours,  the highest since the pandemic began a year ago. With 24,235 fresh cases, the positivity rate has climbed up to 32.82 percent, according to a bulletin issued by the city health department. 

Read Also: Accelerating the “Avalanche of Evils”: Towards Covid-19 Constitutionalism?

This was the eighth-straight day that the national capital  has recorded over 300 deaths due to coronavirus. The cumulative case count in the city stands at 11,22,286, out of which as many as  10.08 lakh have recovered. While the death toll due to the viral disease stands at 15,772, the bulletin said.

Earlier on Friday, Bihar chief secretary Arun Kumar Singh passed away due to Covid-19. He was admitted to Paras Hospital in Patna. The Bihar government has confirmed the death of chief secretary.

As Covid-19 cases continue to surge in Delhi, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday announced a week-long curfew in the city. The decision comes after the CM held a meeting with Lieutenant General Anil Baijal in the wake of the biggest single day spike in the Covid-19 infections since the pandemic started last year. After the meeting Kejriwal announced that the city will be under complete curfew from 10 pm tonight to 6 am next Monday, April 26.

The Delhi CM said all private offices will Work From Home and only government offices and essential services, food services, medical services will continue. Weddings can be held with a gathering of only 50 people, passes will be issued separately for it. A detailed order will be issued shortly.

A weekend curfew was on in the capital to break the chain of transmission but continuing violations in parts of the city signaled that harsher steps were needed.

Other services that will be exempted from the curfew are as follows:

Arvind Kejriwal said in the last 24 hours, around 23,500 cases were reported. In the last 3-4 days, around 25,000 cases have been reported. Positivity rate and infection have increased. If 25,000 patients come every day then the system will crumble, there’s a shortage of beds, he added.

Also Read: Covid-19 surge: Delhi High Court to hear only urgent matters from April 19

Delhi’s health system has been stretched to its limit, is under stress. Harsh measures will have to be taken to prevent a collapse of the health system, he added.

India reported 2,73,810 new cases of Covid-19 infections and 1,619 deaths on Monday. The overall death tally of the country has reached 1.78 lakh. This is the fifth consecutive day that over 2 lakh fresh cases were reported in India. Now India’s caseload stands at 1.5 crore.