The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of the registration of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) over allegations that its leaders, including party convener Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, acted contrary to constitutional principles by their conduct during proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) petition challenging the trial court’s discharge order in a tax policy case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the reasons cited by petitioner Satish Agarwal seeking de-registration – alleging that its members, by their conduct had failed to bear true faith and loyalty to the Constitution of India – “were not only misplaced, but were also largely far-fetched and wrong”.
“The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the court that the manner in which the respondents Nos. 4 (Arvind Kejriwal), 5 (Manish Sisodia) and 6 (Durgesh Pathak) have conducted the criminal review petition proceedings would be tantamount to undermining the authority, majesty and dignity of this Court, and this ground is sufficient for the Election Commission of India. [Election Commission of India] Consider revoking recognition of the political party to which these individuals belong. Where any such conduct or act is discovered and proven, and where it is found that any individual may contempt the dignity of the court, appropriate remedy is available under the law of contempt of court. The court said the petition was not only far-fetched, but largely wrong and misplaced.
The court noted that, in relation to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare, the Election Commission of India can cancel the registration of a political party only in limited circumstances: when the registration is made by fraud or forgery, when the party alters its nomenclature, rules or regulations in violation of Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People (RPA) Act, 1951, or when the party informs the Election Commission of India that it no longer bears faith and loyalty. To the Constitution or to the principles of socialism, secularism, sovereignty and integrity of India.
Read also:Delhi HC issues notice to Kejriwal and others in contempt case
The authority explained that the registration of a political party cannot be canceled simply because of allegations that it failed to preserve constitutional values, as there is no specific provision under the law that allows such cancellation of registration.
She added that once a political party is registered, the EEC has no review power, because the law does not give it such power to reconsider registration or cancel registration on the basis of alleged constitutional violations or breaches of undertakings made at the time of registration.
“The law as decided by the Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress case is that the Election Commission of India cannot take any action to cancel the registration against any political party for violating Section 29A(5) of the EPC on the complaint, as there is no specific provision in the law for the said purpose. The Commission, while exercising its power to register a political party under Section 29A of the EPC, acts as a quasi-judicial authority, the decision passed in the quasi-judicial order said. Once a political party is registered, and no review power has been given to the ECI, it does not have The commission has no power to review the order of registration of a political party for violating the provisions of the Constitution or breach of the undertaking given at the time of registration, the court said.
Regarding Agarwal’s application seeking to bar Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak from contesting elections on the grounds that they lack loyalty to the Constitution and therefore do not meet the qualifications set by Parliament, the court said the allegation was “totally baseless and devoid of any merit”.
An unprecedented standoff between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal began after the lower court dismissed him and other AAP leaders in a tax policy case, prompting the CBI to approach the Supreme Court.
On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s directions for administrative action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate action. Kejriwal sought to move the matter from her seat. Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya rejected this on March 13.
On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others requested Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she rejected on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed Justice Sharma that he would boycott the proceedings. Sisodia and Pathak followed suit.
On May 5, the court said it would appoint senior lawyers as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was postponed on three occasions.
On May 14, Justice Sharma initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew from hearing the CBI’s appeal and contempt application, saying that the law does not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings in relation to a matter to continue hearing it.
On Tuesday, two benches of the Supreme Court heard the contempt case and the CBI’s appeal after Justice Sharma withdrew.
While a bench of Justices Naveen Chawla and Ravinder Dodija issued notice in the contempt petition, Justice Manoj Jain asked the CBI to inform Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak about the appeal sent to his bench.
