PIL In Delhi High Court Seeks To Disqualify Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia From Contesting Polls Over Boycott Of Justice SK Sharma's Court

A PIL has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking disqualification of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting any elections 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.

Filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal, the plea also seeks a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register the Aam Aadmi Party.

The matter will be heard tomorrow by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

For context, a coordinate bench today issued criminal contempt notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, Pathak and other AAP leaders after Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings against them.

This was after Justice Sharma took note of note various social media posts and videos shared by the respondents in connection with the recusal proceedings.

She had earlier rejected the recusal applications like by Kejriwal and others. She has nonetheless transferred the liquor policy case to another single judge.

In the PIL, Aggarwal has contended that the reported conduct of the AAP leaders undermines the authority and dignity of the High Court, which violates the obligation of political parties under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of India.

The petition relies upon media reports concerning statements made by Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak after Justice Sharma declined recusal pleas in the excise policy proceedings.

Aggarwal has alleged that the AAP leaders' decision to abstain from appearing before the Court “either personally or through duly authorized legal representation” raises “serious and substantial questions touching upon the administration of justice, judicial discipline, constitutional governance, and adherence to due process of law.”

The petitioner has argued that litigants dissatisfied with judicial orders have remedies before appellate courts and cannot “boycott court proceedings”.

As per the plea, the reported refusal or unilateral decision of the AAP leaders to appear before the Court of law, either personally or through duly authorized counsel, if found to be correct, directly impinges upon the sanctity, enforceability, and authority of judicial process and undermines the orderly administration of justice.

“Participation in judicial proceedings, once a party is duly summoned or otherwise required to appear, is mandatory under the constitutional and statutory framework governing administration of justice, and cannot be treated as optional except where specifically exempted by a competent court in accordance with law,” the plea states.

The plea has been filed through Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha.

Title: SH. SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS