High Court’s Response to Repeated Requests to Remove Arvind Kejriwal as CM Resembles ‘James Bond’

The court pulled up Sandeep Kumar, a former AAP MLA, for involving the court in a political matter and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him for trying to prolong the issue. The court emphasized that it cannot impose governor’s rule in the capital, and stated that the petitioner was making a mockery of the system.

On March 28, the court dismissed a PIL seeking the removal of Arvind Kejriwal, stating that it was not within the scope of judicial interference, prompting the petitioner to file another PIL on April 4. During the hearing, the court expressed its disapproval of the petitioner’s repeated appeals and remarks, imposing heavy costs for the petitions that were being filed on a daily basis.

The court also criticized the petitioner for persisting in spite of earlier remarks made by a single judge, emphasizing that imposition of costs was the only way to address such petitions. The court then warned the petitioner to have some courtesy and not to reduce the court to a joke.

In his petition, Kumar had argued that Kejriwal, after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, was not qualified to continue as the chief minister. However, the court strongly reprimanded the petitioner and his lawyer for making political speeches and involving the court in political matters.

The court also stressed that it stays out of politics. The petition had been transferred to a new bench after the earlier judge stated that it was filed for publicity and recommended imposing heavy costs.

The court reiterated its position that it cannot interfere in political matters and warned against repeat litigation. Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest and subsequent incarceration were cited in the petition as reasons for his alleged incapacity to continue as the chief minister.

The court, however, remained firm in its stance against judicial interference in such cases.