The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 20 May dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the de-registration of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the disqualification of its leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections. The plea, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, was rooted in the AAP leaders' alleged refusal to participate in proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi excise policy case.

Court Calls Plea 'Highly Misconceived'

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia declined to entertain the petition, observing: 'Having heard the parties, we are of the view that the PIL is highly misconceived.' The bench rejected the argument that adverse observations made by Justice Sharma against AAP leaders in a separate contempt proceeding could form the legal basis for de-registering a political party.

Bench Questions Legal Foundation of the Plea

During the hearing, the bench repeatedly pressed the petitioner on the maintainability of the plea, asking him to identify any statutory provision empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to de-register a party under the circumstances alleged. 'You are asking us to direct ECI to deregister a party. Is there any provision for the de-registration of a political party?' the court asked.

The petitioner invoked a Supreme Court judgment that recognised three grounds for de-registration — including where a party is declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The bench, however, swiftly dismantled each argument, noting that AAP had neither obtained registration by fraud, nor amended its rules in violation of Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, nor been declared an unlawful organisation. 'Has this political party been declared unlawful?' the court asked pointedly, to which the petitioner's counsel conceded it had not.

No Legal Bar on Contesting Elections After Contempt

The bench further observed that even if an individual were convicted for scandalising a court, the remedy would lie under the Contempt of Courts Act — not in barring them from electoral participation. 'If someone is found to have scandalised the court, the remedy lies under the Contempt of Courts Act. Even if convicted, where is the provision that bars such a person from contesting elections?' the court said.

The petitioner ultimately conceded that no specific legal provision existed to support the relief sought, effectively undermining the entire basis of the PIL.

What the PIL Had Alleged

The petition had argued that the conduct of AAP leaders in allegedly refusing to appear before Justice Sharma demonstrated an absence of 'true faith and allegiance to the Constitution' as required under Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It further alleged that their actions undermined the authority and dignity of the Delhi High Court, warranting the party's de-registration. The court found none of these contentions legally tenable.

The dismissal closes this particular legal challenge against AAP, though the party and its leaders continue to face proceedings in the excise policy case before the Delhi courts.