Contempt Action Against Politicians No Ground To Deregister Their Political Party: Delhi High Court On AAP
The Delhi High Court has observed that if politicians are found to have undermined the dignity, authority or majesty of the Court, the appropriate remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and such conduct cannot by itself become a ground for de-register of their political party under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.A division bench comprising Chief...
The Delhi High Court has observed that if politicians are found to have undermined the dignity, authority or majesty of the Court, the appropriate remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and such conduct cannot by itself become a ground for de-register of their political party under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while dismissing a plea seeking de-registration of the Aam Aadmi Party and disqualification of its leaders- Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections.
The petitioner, one Satish Kumar Aggarwal, sought disqualification of the politicians over their refusal to participate in proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case as well as for reportedly scandalising her on social media.
Aggarwal's counsel argued that observations made by Justice Sharma against the AAP leaders reflected that their conduct was contrary to constitutional principles, thus warranting action by the Election Commission of India under Section 29A(5) of the RP Act.
Rejecting the contention, the bench held that such submissions were “too far-fetched”, “highly misconceived” and “misplaced”.
The Court emphasised that observations made in the proceedings before the single judge were confined to the subject matter of that case (excise policy) and could not be expanded to seek derecognition of a political party.
At this juncture, the Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the manner in which the political leaders had conducted themselves will amount to undermining the authority, majesty and dignity of the Court and, therefore, such ground will suffice for the Election Commission to consider derecognition of the political party.
Disagreeing, the Court said,
"In our considered opinion, in a situation where any such conduct or act is found and established where any individual is found to have undermined the dignity or authority of the Court, appropriate course in law, if the situation so warrants, is available under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971."
The Bench added that observations made by the single judge cannot be the basis of asking the Election Commission to initiate the process of derecognition under Section 29A(5) of the RP Act.
"Such observations made by this Court in its judgment dated 20.04.2026 passed in Crl.Rev.P. 134/2026, in our opinion, cannot be the basis of asking the Election Commission to initiate the process of derecognition of Respondent No. 3 under Section 29-A(5) of the R.P. Act," it said.
The Court thus dismissed the PIL, holding that no ground recognised in law for deregistration of a political party was made out.
Title: SH. SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS