Delhi HC dismisses PIL seeking to de-register AAP, disqualify leaders

The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL to de-register the Aam Aadmi Party and disqualify its leaders, including Arvind Kejriwal. The court ruled there is no legal provision under the Representation of the People Act to support such a demand.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and disqualify Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections.

Court Finds No Legal Provision for Deregistration

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the petition was misconceived and that there is no express provision under the Representation of the People Act empowering the ECI to de-register a political party on the grounds urged in the plea.

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha appeared for the petitioner and made submissions that political leaders holding responsible positions in a party are expected to uphold constitutional values and that alleged acts scandalising court proceedings should invite punitive action.

During the hearing, the Bench asked the petitioner's counsel to point out the legal provision under which the Court could direct deregistration of a political party. "You are asking us to direct ECI to deregister a party. Please take us to the section," the Court remarked.

Remedy Lies Under Contempt of Courts Act

The petitioner argued that the conduct allegedly attributed to the leaders showed lack of allegiance to constitutional principles. However, the Bench observed that contempt proceedings were already pending and questioned how such allegations could lead to deregistration of the political party or disqualification from contesting elections.

The Court clarified that if any individual is found to have undermined the dignity of the Court, the remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act, and the consequences, if any, would be borne by those individuals.

The Bench also observed that the April 20 order passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy matter had to be read only in the context of the criminal revision proceedings before that Court and not beyond it.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Indian National Congress (I), the High Court noted that deregistration of a political party is a serious matter and that the ECI does not possess a general power of review once registration has been granted.

The PIL was filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, alleging violation of Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act after certain statements and conduct allegedly attributed to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak in relation to proceedings before Justice Sharma. Dismissing the plea, the Bench held that the case did not fall within the limited grounds recognised in law for deregistration of a political party and concluded that the petition lacked merit. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)