Case title: SURJIT SINGH YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case no: W.P.(C) 4578/2024
Order on: 28 March, 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANMOHAN WITH HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Fact of the case:
In this writ petition, Surjit Singh Yadav filed a Writ petition. The petitioner sought a Writ of Quo Warranto to call upon Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to justify under what authority Respondent No. 4 continues to hold the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with an alleged liquor policy scam. The petitioner alleged that the continuance of Respondent No. 4 in office after his arrest degrades the credibility and image of the Government of NCT of Delhi and leads to a breakdown of constitutional machinery, rendering the state government non-functional. The petitioner cited Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which outlines the limited communication privileges of prisoners, suggesting that these limitations delay the Chief Minister’s ability to perform his duties effectively while in custody.
Issues framed by Court:
Whether Respondent No. 4 has the authority to continue holding the post of Chief Minister of Government of NCT of Delhi after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate.
Legal provisions:
Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018: Deals with the facilities available to prisoners, including communication with family members, relatives, friends, and legal advisers for various purposes such as appeal, bail, and management of property and family affairs.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioner, Surjit Singh Yadav, contended that Respondent No. 4 should not continue to hold the post of Chief Minister of the Government of NCT of Delhi after being arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case related to an alleged liquor policy scam. The petitioner argued that the continued tenure of Respondent No. 4 has degraded the credibility and image of the Government of NCT of Delhi in the eyes of the general public. The petitioner asserted that the State Government cannot function effectively with the Chief Minister in custody, leading to a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. The petitioner referenced Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, emphasizing the limitations on a prisoner’s ability to communicate and manage affairs, thereby impacting the Chief Minister’s capacity to perform his duties.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondents, including the Union of India and other governmental bodies, argued that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, does not have the authority to remove or dismiss a sitting Chief Minister or declare a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. They contended that such actions fall within the purview of other organs of the State in accordance with law. The respondents also argued that the allegations presented by the petitioner lack of merit and do not warrant judicial interference.
Court Analysis & Judgement:
The Court determined that there is no scope for judicial interference in the present matter within the writ jurisdiction. The Court stated that it cannot remove or dismiss Respondent No. 4 from the post of Chief Minister or declare a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. The Court clarified that it is the responsibility of other state organs to examine and address the issue of whether the Chief Minister should continue in office while in custody, as well as any potential breakdown of constitutional machinery, in accordance with the law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s reference to Rule 585 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, but did not find it sufficient grounds for judicial intervention to remove the Chief Minister.
Therefore, The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition, stating that the court in writ jurisdiction cannot remove or dismiss the Chief Minister or declare a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State. It is the responsibility of other state organs to address these issues as per the law. The court made no comment on the merits of the allegations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
