The plea sought a writ of quo warranto calling upon Kejriwal to point out by what authority he holds the workplace of the chief minister of Delhi and seeks that after an inquiry, he be dislodged from the workplace with or with out the retrospective impact. A writ of quo warranto requires an individual to point out by what warrant an workplace or franchise is held, claimed, or exercised.
In the meantime, Kumar’s counsel argued that the plea concerned the interpretation of the Structure of India as far as the qualification of the chief minister is worried.
On 28 March, the courtroom had dismissed a PIL for Arvind Kejriwal’s elimination, saying that whereas the petitioner had failed to point out any authorized bar that prohibited the arrested chief minister from holding workplace, there was additionally no scope for judicial interference in such instances because it was for the opposite organs of the state to analyze the problem.
The bench requested the counsel whether or not the Supreme Court docket or any excessive courtroom has eliminated any chief minister. When the counsel referred to a Supreme Court docket judgment in BR Kapoor vs Tamil Nadu case, the bench noticed that the judgment being referred to was in a case the place there was a conviction order first which was adopted by disqualification of the individual in query below Article 164 of the Structure of India.
It additionally mentioned it can not declare a breakdown of the constitutional equipment within the nationwide capital.
The counsel mentioned that his shopper has the fitting to have a authorities as per the Structure of India and if the identical isn’t there the place ought to he go aside from the courtroom.
