New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday decided not to go ahead with the several issues arising in the wake of the then Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's role in a leading protest while holding constitutional office in January this year.
The court, which on Janaury 24 had asked the Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Government to respond on the issue whether constitutional post holder can resort to agitation in violation of law, said "the situation has changed".
"We are satisfied this is not a fit case to proceed further. Let the petition be dismissed," a bench comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman said.
The PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma, had raised various issues including whether constitutional post holder can resort to agitation in violation of law. Kejriwal along with his supporters had gathered outside the Rail Bhavan despite prohibitory orders under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure barring assembly of five and more persons being in force.
AAP was demanding action against policemen who refused to carry out a raid on an alleged drug and prostitution ring on the then Delhi minister Somnath Bharti's directive. At that time, the apex court had agreed to examine "whether chief minister/minister is allowed to play a double role, i.e. holding constitutional office and street agitator against the constitutional systems in a same time, under the constitution of India?
In the PIL, the advocate had raised questions whether chief minister minister can highlight any demand via means other than permitted constitutional systems under Artice 256. The petitioner had asked whether chief minister/minister have any legal authority to act as a police officer under CrPC/Constitution to raid or detain any women in the midnight? He wanted to know whether chief minister/minister can violate constitutional provision & breach the oath of office/secrecy what they took under the third schedule of the constitution?
He asked whether chief minister /minister are liable to be removed or not for the unconstitutional action/misbehavior/criminal offence of IPC.
Comments
0 comment