'Highly Misconceived': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To De-Register AAP, Disqualify Arvind Kejriwal From Contesting Polls

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL seeking disqualification of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting any elections in view of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's order initiating criminal contempt against them.Calling the petition 'highly misconceived', a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected Petitioner's contention that the contempt order reflects AAP leaders' non-allegiance to the Constitution. "Such submission is absolutely baseless and bereft of any consideration," it said.The Court observed that the contempt order has to be read only for the purposes of issue involved in that case and not for any other purpose.Filed by one Satish Kumar Aggarwal, the plea also sought a direction on the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register the Aam Aadmi Party.The Court rejected this prayer, stating that the Election Commission has no power to review its order granting registration to a party. In its order pronounced in open Court, the bench said,"The law settled by the Supreme Court in Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) is that no proceedings for de-registration can be taken by commission against party for having violated provisions of Representation of Peoples Act on complaint of a person. It has been observed that commission while exercising its powers to register a party, acts as quasi judicial authority and decision rendered by it is an order and once party is registered, no power of review is with the ECI."The judges further observed that the ECI can de-register a party in only three exceptional circumstances: (i) where registration is found to be obtained by fraud, (ii) in case party amends its nomenclature which are not in conformity with Sec 29A(5), or (iii) party intimates ECI that it does not have faith to Constitution. Petitioner had relied on the third exception to contend that Justice Sharma's order against the AAP leaders reflected that they had acted against the Constitution.The Court however found the submission to be "too far fetched". It observed there was nothing on record to show that AAP had admitted that it does not have faith in Constitution.The Court further clarified that the observations made by Justice Sharma in the contempt order must be understood to be confined only to subject matter of that case and not outside."The counsel for Petitioner has urged court that manner in which respondents (AAP leaders) have conducted themselves in proceedings of that case will amount to undermine authority or majesty of this court and thus such ground is enough for de-recognition of party. In a situation where any such conduct or act is found and established where individual undermines dignity of court, appropriate course in law is available under contempt of court act. Such observations made in April 20 order cant be basis of asking ECI yo deregister the party (AAP)," it said.The Court further observed,"It is not the case that the party here has got registration due to fraud or that party has amended its nomenclature which are not in conformity with Section 29A (5) or that party here has intimated the Commission that it has ceased to have faith with Constitution of India...The emphasis of counsel for Petitioner is on observations of SC where it has been observed that de-recognition can be done on any like ground where no inquiry is required by ECI. We do not find any such like ground in this petition to attract such situation as said in the judgment."Courtroom ExchangeDuring the hearing, the High Court inquired from the Petitioner whether there is any provision in any law which permits de-registration of a political party."You are asking us to direct ECI to deregister a party. Is there any provision for de registration of a political party? If there is then what is statutory scheme for registration and de-registration? Please take us to the section," the CJ told the counsel appearing for Petitioner.The counsel conceded that there is no provision in Representation of Peoples Act, which contemplates de-registration of a political party. However, he referred to Supreme Court judgment in Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) where the Supreme Court carved out three situations where cancellation of registration can be ordered.One is where a political party obtained its registration by playing fraud on the Commission. Second need of de-registration arises out of Section 29A(9) of the RP Act for non-conformity in change in name, head office, office bearers, address, or any other material particular of the party. And third, any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the Election Commission, for example, where the political party concerned is declared unlawful by the Central Government under the provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or any other similar law.The CJ however remarked that the...

'Highly Misconceived': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To De-Register AAP, Disqualify Arvind Kejriwal From Contesting Polls

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

'Highly Misconceived': Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL To De-Register AAP, Disqualify Arvind Kejriwal From Contesting Polls

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers