'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 Exchange

During 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 present case does not fall in any of the above mentioned exceptions. "First two situations don't matter in this case. You are taking aid of third ground- political party is declared unlawful. Whether this party has been declared as unlawful?"

The counsel then referred to Section 29A (5) of the RP Act which stipulates that any political party seeking registration with the Election Commission must submit a memorandum or rules and regulations containing a specific, binding provision which states that the party bears true faith and allegiance to the following principles: The Constitution of India (as by law established), Socialism, Secularism, Democracy, Sovereignty, Unity, and Integrity of India.

"This provision is mandatory requirement. If anyone violates it, this matter will fall (under the exceptions)" the counsel submitted. He added that bearing true faith to the constitution is one of qualifications of member of a political party and who stands for election. "If he does not have faith in constitution, he cant contest elections," he argued.

The counsel further referred to Justice Sharma's contempt order, and contended that since observations were made against members of the political party, the party has disqualified itself to continue to be registered.

The counsel had further relied on Article 84C of Constitution which prescribes qualifications for individuals to become Members of Parliament.

The Court however remarked that individual members of a party may disqualify themselves but the same is different from de-registration of party.

"How far are you stretching this provision? If somebody has scandalized the court or proceedings, appropriate remedy is under contempt of court act. If someone is punished under the contempt of court act, will he be disqualified from elections? How will that lead to de-registration of party? First establish that ECI can deregister a party. Your matter does not fall anywhere," the CJ said.

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