Delhi High Court cancels registration of Aam Aadmi Party and Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Cheech‘The court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking disqualification of Dia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections. A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Kariya dismissed the petition as completely baseless. The court cited an old Supreme Court judgment to clarify that the Election Commission does not have the general right to cancel the registration of a political party under the Representation of the People Act. A‘The court also said that if a leader is subjected to contempt of court, Dr, Then action will be taken against that particular person‘b, Not against the entire team.
The Delhi High Court, in delivering this landmark judgement, referred to the old judgment of the Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress case. The court made it clear that deregistration of a political party is a very serious and sensitive matter. Once a party is registered by the Election Commission under the Representation of the People Act, There is no right to cancellation of registration or general review for such general reasons. The petitioner had alleged violation of Section 29A 5 of the Representation of the People Act, but the court held that the case did not fit anywhere within the limited ambit of the Act., j‘Take away a party’s recognition‘b can be used. The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal in its entirety without any merit.
During the hearing, petitioner Satish Kumar Agarwal’s lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha argued in the court that political leaders holding positions of responsibility are expected to uphold constitutional values. He alleged that these leaders are trying to disrespect the executive of the court, So take strict action against them‘b should be The bench took a very strict stand and asked the petitioner’s counsel to show under which legal section the claim was made. The court said the petitioner has asked the Election Commission to order cancellation of the party’s registration, However, it has not been able to demonstrate a legal process to do so.
Ahigh The Court makes it perfectly clear that if a person has defamed the Court, Then the executive branch is already running on the contempt of court law. The consequences must be borne by the individual, A whole political party cannot be punished for the mistake of one person. The court also clarified that the April 20 order in the Excise Policy case should be read only in respect of the Criminal Review Executive., Not beyond that. At the end of the hearing, the court told the lawyer that their arguments did not meet any legal requirements and the case cannot be sustained.
