Delhi High Court: A PIL was filed on behalf of the ‘People of India’ seeking grant of extraordinary interim bail to Respondent 5- Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi in all criminal cases, the Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., opined that it was strange that petitioner had offered to extend a personal bond in favour of Respondent 5 and undertaking that Respondent 5 would not try to influence the witnesses involved, or try to destroy the evidence. The Court opined that petitioner held no power of attorney on behalf of Respondent 5 to either make such statements/undertakings on his behalf or extend such personal bond. Rule of locus standi was relaxed in a case of public interest litigation, but that was to be done only to ensure that the poor or socially and economically backward or persons with disability were not denied their rights.
The Court opined that even though Respondent 5 was in judicial custody, it had the means and the wherewithal to approach the Court and file appropriate proceedings. Therefore, no relaxation of the principle of locus standi was called for in the present case. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition with costs of Rs. 75,000.
Background
Petitioner claimed to have ‘veto power’, which was sufficient to give concession to any accused, if arrested and/or confined in jail under judicial custody. Petitioner averred that the inquiry and/or trial of the criminal cases registered against Respondent 5 by Respondent 2 and 3 would take long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars till conclusion of such inquiry/investigation. Thus, petitioner prayed for the grant of extraordinary interim bail to Respondent 5, till the completion of his tenure and/or till the completion of criminal trials, whichever was earlier.
Petitioner stated that on account of arrest of Respondent 5 and his subsequent confinement to judicial custody, working of the Government of NCT of Delhi and its Cabinet had come to a standstill and the administration was working like a ‘headless’ organization. On the other hand, Respondent 5 stated that the present petition was an ambush petition and Respondent 5 was taking steps to enforce and protect his legal rights in accordance with law.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the present writ petition was not maintainable as Respondent 5 was in judicial custody in pursuance to judicial orders, which was not challenged. Further, it was imperative to retain public confidence in the Constitution and to bear in mind the concept of equality enshrined in it. The Court opined that petitioner’s claim to be custodian and representative of people of India was nothing but a fanciful claim which was devoid of any basis.
The Court found it odd that petitioner claimed to have ‘veto power’. Further, it was even more strange that petitioner had offered to extend a personal bond in favour of Respondent 5 and undertaking that Respondent 5 would not try to influence the witnesses involved, or try to destroy the evidence or try to flee from justice. The Court opined that petitioner held no power of attorney on behalf of Respondent 5 to either make such statements/undertakings on his behalf or extend such personal bond.
The Court opined that the glaring lack of justice was augmented by the fact that petitioner was a stranger to criminal proceedings initiated against Respondent 5. Rule of locus standi was relaxed in a case of public interest litigation, but that was to be done only to ensure that the poor or socially and economically backward or persons with disability were not denied their rights. The Court opined that even though Respondent 5 was in judicial custody, it had the means and the wherewithal to approach the Court and file appropriate proceedings. Therefore, no relaxation of the principle of locus standi was called for in the present case.
Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition with costs of Rs. 75,000, which was to be deposited within four weeks, and directed the petitioner to file a proof of deposit within one week of such deposit.
[We, the People of India v. Union of India, W.P.(CRL) 1203 of 2023, decided on 22-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Karan Pal Singh, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP with Abhinav Bhardwaj and K. Manaswini, Advocates; Santosh Kumar Tripathi, standing counsel with Shadan Farsat, ASC, Rishikesh Kumar, Irshand, Tushar Sanna and Mohit Bhardwaj, Advocates; Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate with Talha Abdul Rehman, Hrishikesh Kumar, Sreekar Aechuri, Chaitanya Gosain, Adnan Bhat and Sahat Karan Singh, Advocates.