The Delhi High Court on Monday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking "extraordinary interim bail" for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in all criminal cases till he completes his tenure in office or till the time trials are complete in the cases [We, The People of India v Union of India & Ors].A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also imposed costs of ₹75,000 on the petitioner after noting that the petition was filed without any basis and the petitioner did not have any power of attorney executed by Kejriwal authorising him to file such PIL."This court is of the view that the petitioner's claim of being custodian of people is devoid of any basis... The petitioner holds no power of attorney on behalf of the R5 to furnish any personal bond. In the present case R5( Kejriwal) has the means and wherewithal to file the case and proceedings which he has so done before this court as well as apex court. Consequently, this court is of the view that no relaxation of concept of locus standi is called for," the Court stated.The Court further said that Kejriwal is in jail under judicial custody pursuant to a court order and a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against the same is not maintainable."This court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable as R5 (Arvind Kejriwal) is in judicial custody in pursuance to the judicial orders which have not been challenged in the present petition. Further, this court in writ jurisdiction cannot grant extraordinary interim bail in a pending criminal case initiated against a person holding high office," the Court made it clear in its order.The Court also noted that similar petitions filed earlier had been dismissed by the Court and last such petition was rejected with costs of ₹50,000.Pertinently, Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Kejriwal, also opposed the plea."Completely impermissible prayers.. Grant extraordinary bail in all matters... How can such a prayer be granted. Who is this person to come in this kind of matter. This is a complete publicity interest litigation. Very sorry state of affairs," Mehta submitted.The petitioner claimed that he was representing the people of India and was concerned about the welfare of the people of Delhi since they were without an elected head of the government.The Court, however, said that such an argument had been dealt with earlier too in similar petitions."With respect to the submission that incarceration of R5 has led to hampering the functioning of the government, the same has been dealt with this court earlier," the Bench said while rejecting the plea.The petitioner filed the plea in the name of "We The People of India" arguing that he is not using his name because he does not want any publicity.It was argued that he is representing the residents of Delhi.The plea contended that some people are trying to crush the reputation of Arvind Kejriwal by circulating false news on social media and since his arrest, the entire functioning of the Delhi government has come to a standstill."The reputation of the Government of NCT of Delhi as well as state of Delhi is going down in the eyes of whole world due to the confinement of the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi in Jail," the plea contended.The PIL, filed through advocate Karan Pal Singh, said that even the judges cannot give back the time that Kejriwal spends in jail if he is acquitted of the charges."The Respondent No.5 i.e. the Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi may be guilty for the alleged offence(s) or may not be guilty for the same, but, it is a well established principal of law that “everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense," the plea said.The petitioner also cited safety concerns and said that Kejriwal is confined in jail with hard core criminals, who are facing the criminal cases of rape, murder, dacoity and even bomb-blast."As an example, the Petitioner wants to remind to this Hon’ble High Court that the sitting member of Parliament Sh. Atiq Ahmed, while he was under police escort, at Prayagraj, has been killed by only three clumsy assailants in Police Custody last year and police escort officials could not do anything, except just to save themselves. Not only this, police escort officials took two steps back to save themselves," it was contended.Kejriwal was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on allegations that he was the "key conspirator" in the money laundering case registered in the matter.The arrest took place hours after his plea for interim protection from arrest was rejected by the Delhi High Court.On March 22, Kejriwal was produced by the ED before judge Baweja, who initially remanded the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader to ED custody till March 28.On March 28, Kejriwal's ED custody was extended further.Finally, on April 1, Kejriwal was remanded to judicial custody till today.
TAGS: Delhi High Court PIL Arvind Kejriwal extraordinary interim bail judicial custody costs public interest litigation Chief Minister
