A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court on Monday transferred a petition seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal as Delhi Chief Minister to a bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan.
The plea was moved by Sandeep Kumar, a former cabinet minister in the Delhi government, seeking a writ of quo-warranto against Kejriwal alleging that he has incurred the “incapacity” to hold the office of Chief Minister of Delhi after he was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 in the excise policy case and subsequently remanded to police and judicial custody.
![](https://i0.wp.com/data.indianexpress.com/election2019/track_1x1.jpg?resize=1%2C1&ssl=1)
The plea calls upon Kejriwal to show by what authority he holds the office of the chief minister of Delhi and seeks that after an inquiry, he be dislodged from the office with or without the retrospective effect.
A single judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad asked the petitioner’s counsel whether the plea was a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition. “Is this a PIL? How is it a writ of quo warranto?” Justice Prasad orally asked and said the plea seems to have been filed for “publicity”.
A writ of quo warranto requires a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or exercised.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, thereafter, sent the matter to be heard by a bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan. “Since similar matters are listed and disposed of by Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice…let this matter be listed before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice,” said Justice Prasad.
While transferring the matter, Justice Subramonium Prasad said orally, “You might escape without costs. I would have imposed heavy costs”.
The matter is now listed on April 10.
A former AAP MLA, Kumar has said in his plea a chief minister is appointed by the President under Article 239AA (5) of the Constitution, and Article 239AA (4) of the Constitution provides for the Council of Ministers with the chief minister as the head to aid and advise the L-G in the exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the legislative assembly has power to make laws. “The aid and advice to the Lieutenant Governor are practically not possible without the Chief Minister being a free person available to render his aid and advice under the Constitution,” the plea states.
The plea says Kejriwal’s “unavailability” complicates the constitutional mechanism, Kumar as a voter is “personally aggrieved” for having the CM who has incurred an incapacity to remain in the post and who can “never function as the Chief Minister from the custody or prison as envisaged by the Constitution”.
On April 1, Rouse Avenue Court sent Kejriwal to judicial custody till April 15. On April 3, a single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved the verdict on the CM’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED in the excise policy case. The next day, a division bench led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan disposed of a PIL plea by Vishnu Gupta seeking Kejriwal’s removal as CM, after he sought to withdraw a PIL and file representation before the L-G.
On March 28, the same bench had dismissed a plea by Surjit Singh Yadav also seeking Kejriwal’s removal as CM while observing that there is “no scope for judicial interference” and that it was for the “other organs of the state to examine the said aspect in accordance with law”.