'Prima Facie Not Maintainable': Delhi High Court On Plea By Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Against Privilege Committee Summons

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday listed for hearing tomorrow the plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia challenging the summons issued to them by Delhi Legislative Assembly's Privilege Committee over the “phansi ghar” controversy.

Justice Sachin Datta orally remarked that prima facie, the petition is not maintainable.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appearing for the Delhi Legislative Assembly prayed that the matter be listed tomorrow as he was busy arguing a part heard matter today.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appeared for Kejriwal and Sisodia and prayed that a notice be issued in the stay application.

He said that the impugned notice is per se without jurisdiction.

As Mehta said that the plea is not maintainable, Farasat argued that he will show the petition is maintainable. I am covered by three judgments of this court, he said.

The Court then listed the matter for hearing tomorrow.

As per the petition, more than three years after the inauguration of the Phansi Ghar and several months after the dissolution of the 7th Assembly, the issue relating to authenticity of the structure was raised for the first time in the 8th Legislative Assembly of Delhi on August 05.

The petition submits that the 'Faansi Ghar' was installed as a symbolic memorial relating to the freedom struggle and the sacrifices made by freedom fighters, and that the inauguration were matters of public knowledge.

It further contends that the legislature may have powers to set up committees to inquire into matters to inform legislation or for public oversight, but the brick and mortar design and restoration in premises of the Delhi Legislative Assembly is neither to inform legislation nor for public oversight.

The petition adds that the Privileges Committee does not have the jurisdiction to examine authenticity of the historical facts which had been taken into account the previous incumbent Speaker and Deputy Speaker and to proceed against dignitary who attended the inauguration.

“Even though the Petitioners had replied to the notice dated 09.09.2025, the same has not been duly considered and the notice for sitting summons dated 04.11.2025 makes no reference to the objections or grounds raised by the petitioners in their respective replies,” the plea states.

The AAP leaders have argued that the proceedings suffer from lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegalities, constitutional infirmities, and colourable exercise of legislative power.

“They violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and are liable to be quashed,” it states.

Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ANR v. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, NCT OF DELHI & ORS