New Delhi, May 20 (IANS) The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking de-registration of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and disqualification of its leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections over their refusal to participate in proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia termed the plea, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, “highly misconceived” and refused to entertain the petition.
“Having heard the parties, we are of the view that the PIL is highly misconceived,” the Delhi High Court observed, rejecting the contention that observations made by Justice Sharma against AAP leaders in a separate proceeding could justify the de-registration of the political party.
During the hearing, the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench repeatedly questioned the maintainability of the plea and asked the petitioner to highlight any statutory provision empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register a political party in such circumstances. “You are asking us to direct ECI to deregister a party. Is there any provision for the de-registration of a political party?” the Delhi High Court asked.
The petitioner, relying on a Supreme Court judgment, contended that a political party can be de-registered in three situations, including where no inquiry is required by the ECI, such as when a party is declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
At this, the bench said: “It is not the case that the party has obtained registration by fraud or that it has amended its rules in violation of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, nor is it a case where the party has intimated that it has ceased to have faith in the Constitution”.
“The third ground is that a party can be deregistered if it is declared unlawful under the UAPA or a similar law. Has this political party been declared unlawful?” it questioned.
As the petitioner’s counsel replied in the negative and argued that the basis of the plea was Justice Sharma’s observations against AAP leaders in contempt proceedings, the bench responded: “If someone is found to have scandalised the court, the remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act. Even if convicted, where is the provision that bars such a person from contesting elections?”
The petitioner eventually conceded that no specific legal provision exists to support the relief sought.
The plea had contended that the conduct of AAP leaders in allegedly refusing to appear before Justice Sharma showed an absence of “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution” as required under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It alleged that the actions of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other leaders undermined the authority and dignity of the Delhi High Court, warranting the de-registration of the party.
–IANS
pds/vd