High Court’s Response to Multiple Requests to Remove Arvind Kejriwal as CM likened to ‘James Bond’

The court’s bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, addressed the issue of involvement in the executive domain and emphasized the lack of “repeat litigation.” Petitioner Sandeep Kumar, a former AAP MLA, sought the removal of Arvind Kejriwal from office.

However, the court admonished Kumar for attempting to involve the court in a “political thicket” and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him. The court stressed that it cannot impose governor’s rule in the capital and accused the petitioner of “making a mockery of the system.”

The court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the removal of Arvind Kejriwal on March 28, citing the absence of legal bar or scope for judicial interference. On April 4, a second PIL was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach the lieutenant governor.

Despite this, Kumar’s counsel argued that his case required interpretation of the Constitution, prompting Justice Manmohan to criticize the petitioner for persisting with the issue and making political speeches. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s actions were reducing the judiciary to a joke and imposed heavy costs, warning against repeat litigation.

The petition, filed after Kejriwal’s arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, argued his incapacity to function as chief minister from prison. However, the court expressed disapproval, labeling the petition as a ploy for publicity.

Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest occurred on March 21, and the petition questioned his ability to function as chief minister from prison. The court emphasized the lack of judicial involvement in political matters and expressed frustration at the petitioner’s persistence.

The court concluded by cautioning against repeat litigation and imposing heavy costs, reiterating the importance of upholding the sanctity of the legal system. *(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.

)*