Kejriwal agitation: SC decides not to go ahead with issues

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Jul 07 2014 | 9:44 PM IST
The Supreme Court today 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 R M Lodha and Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman said.
The PIL filed by advocate M L 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.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jul 07 2014 | 9:44 PM IST

Next Story