NEW DELHI: Declining to give directions on the third PIL within ten days seeking removal of Arvind Kejriwal as
chief minister
following his arrest,
Delhi High Court
on Thursday said it is AAP leader's "personal call".
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P S Arora told the latest petitioner that the bench had recently dismissed a similar plea and cannot take a different view.
"At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest but that is his personal call. If he does not want to do that it is up to him. We are a court of law and have to go by the law. Your remedy does not lie here, it lies elsewhere," the bench said, declining to issue any directions.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel said a constitutional deadlock had been created following Kejriwal's arrest by the
Enforcement Directorate
on March 21. He argued that a citizen is entitled to have a functioning govt.
Asking if there was any precedent of a court imposing President'
s rule
or Governor's rule, the court said. "This is a practical issue, not a legal issue. We won't go into this. Can we declare that the govt is not functioning? Governor is fully competent. He does not need our guidance. There is a discretion to take the call. Let's not anticipate that they won't discharge their functions. We can't venture into this".
The bench re-iterated that it is not for courts to decide and it is up to the lieutenant governor or the President of India who are the competent authorities. "How can we declare that the govt is not functioning? The
LG
is fully competent to decide it. He (LG) does not need our guidance. We are no one to advise him. He will do whatever he has to in accordance with law," it said
As the court refused to interfere in the matter, petitioner
Vishnu Gupta
said he will approach the LG with his plea. The court allowed it to be withdrawn. Gupta, in his plea, said that Kejriwal was guilty of breach of trust reposed in him by the Constitution.
After Kejriwal's arrest, the court had dismissed a similar PIL observing that the petitioner failed to show any bar in law prohibiting an arrested CM from holding office.
English (US) ·