New Delhi, 04 April: The Delhi High Court has refused to give any direction on the petition seeking removal of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from the post of Chief Minister after his arrest in the Delhi Excise Scam case. After that the petitioner withdrew his petition. A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said that a similar petition has been rejected.
The court said that it is for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to decide what decision he takes in the national interest. National interest should be kept above personal interests.
During the hearing, senior advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Kejriwal, said that this petition should have been withdrawn earlier, because a similar petition was filed by Surjit Singh Yadav, which was rejected by the High Court.
This petition was filed by Hindu Sena President Vishnu Gupta. It was said in the petition that Arvind Kejriwal has been arrested under the Money Laundering Act and he is guilty of breaching confidentiality under the Constitution. In such a situation, Kejriwal should be removed from the post under Section 164 of the Constitution.
The petition said that Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 and since that day Articles 154, 162 and 163 of the Constitution are not being followed by the Delhi government. The Cabinet of Delhi Government has not met since March 21, so that it can advise the Lieutenant Governor and the Lieutenant Governor can take any decision on it.
Delhi High Court had rejected a similar petition on March 29. The bench headed by Delhi Acting Chief Justice Manmohan had said that this is not the work of the court but of the executive. The court had said that tell any such law which has a provision for removal of the Chief Minister from the post.
The court had said that if there is any constitutional failure then the President or the Lieutenant Governor will decide. There is no scope for judicial intervention in this matter. The court had said that we have read in the newspapers that the Lieutenant Governor is investigating this matter. After that it will go to the President.
The court had said that we understand that there are some practical problems. Why should we issue orders on this? We cannot give instructions to the President or the Lieutenant Governor. The executive imposes President’s rule. There is no need to tell us this. We cannot interfere in this. We cannot go into politics. Political parties should see this. They can go among the public, not us.
