HC dismisses PIL to deregister AAP, disqualify Kejriwal

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking a direction to the Election Commission to deregister the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and disqualify its chief, Arvind Kejriwal and other leaders from contesting elections for boycotting HC proceedings in the liquor policy case.

A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the petition by Satish Kumar Aggarwal was bereft of any merit and his contention was “too far-fetched, highly misconceived and misplaced”.

According to the public interest litigation (PIL), AAP was liable to be deregistered in terms of Section 29A (5) of the Representation of the People Act on account of its officer bearers and members —  Kerjiwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak— boycotting the proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the liquor policy case.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that while Section 29A (5) mandates a political party to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution”, Kerjiwal, Sisodia and Pathak failed to adhere to the constitutional principles when they “scandalised and politicised the entire system” in the liquor policy case.

“There is nothing on record to establish that the Respondent no. 3 (AAP) has admitted that it has no faith in the Constitution or the principles of secularism, socialism or democracy,” the high court said.

The court stated that the Election Commission does not have the power to deregister a political party, and contempt of court proceedings have already been initiated against the politicians for their conduct.

The high court also ruled the petitioner’s contention that Kejriwal and others ought to be disqualified for their lack of allegiance to the constitutional provision was “absolutely baseless”.

It added that the issue of their disqualification from contesting polls would arise only when there are any upcoming elections and the three politicians decide to contest in them.

The court noted that it was not the petitioner’s case that AAP obtained its registration through fraud or that the political party had intimated to the Election Commission that it no longer had allegiance to the Constitution.

“The petition is bereft of any merit, which is resultantly dismissed,” it concluded.

On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case, as it ruled that the case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.

The CBI had moved the HC against the order.

While issuing notice to all 23 accused on the CBI’s plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said that certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.

Subsequently, Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents moved an application seeking recusal of the judge, alleging conflict of interest and an apprehension of bias.

They announced that they would boycott proceedings in the case after Justice Sharma rejected their plea to recuse from the case.

Justice Sharma on May 14 initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Kejriwal, Sisodia and other AAP leaders, including Vinay Mishra, over their alleged “vilifying” social media posts against her in relation to the excise policy case.

Justice Sharma also said that the CBI’s petition against the discharge of all accused persons would now be taken up by another bench.