New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court today expressed displeasure over the multiple petitions filed by AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal seeking his removal as chief minister after his arrest.

The court said that once it had dealt with the issue and held that it fell within the administrative realm, there should not be any “duplication of proceedings” as this was not a James Bond film that would not have a sequel.

A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan arrested former AAP MLA Sandeep Kumar, who had sought Kejwal’s removal from office, for trying to involve the court in the “political jungle”. It also said that a fee of Rs 50,000 would be levied from the court. he.

“This is not like a James Bond movie where we will have a sequel. The governor will decide on it. You are trying to involve us in the political jungle and that’s it,” the court observed.

A bench comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora reiterated that it cannot impose governor’s rule in the national capital.

The court held that the petitioner “is making a mockery of the system” and said: “You need to bear costs of Rs 50,000. We will pass the order.”

On March 28, the court dismissed a PIL against Arvind Kejriwal’s removal from office, saying that while the petitioner failed to show any legal impediment barring the arrested chief minister from holding public office, in such cases There is also no scope for judicial intervention as the matter should be investigated by other organs of the state.

It also said it could not declare the capital’s constitutional machinery to be broken.

On April 4, the court refused to entertain a second PIL on the issue and said it was Mr. Kejriwal’s personal choice to continue as Chief Minister and allowed the petitioners freedom to approach the Lieutenant Governor (LG).

On Wednesday, Mr Kumar’s lawyers argued that his case required an interpretation of the constitution and that Mr Kejriwal was now ineligible to be chief minister because of his arrest in a money laundering case.

Justice Manmohan said that if there is grievance, the earlier decision should be appealed instead of filing a third petition on the same issue.

When the petitioner’s lawyer continued to argue and questioned where he would go if the government did not abide by the constitution, the court told him not to make political speeches.

“Please don’t make political speeches here. Go to the street corner and do it over there. Please don’t do that. Your client may be a politician and he may like to be involved in politics, but we are not involved in politics. We stay away from politics,” Manmohan the judge said.

“You are making a mockery of the system. Don’t treat us as a joke. It is because of you as a customer that we have become a joke. We have made you pay a heavy price. Please don’t do this. Don’t file repeated lawsuits,” the judge added.

The court further said that despite remarks made by a judge while disposing of his petition earlier this week, the petitioner remained “persistent” and said levying costs was the only way to “dispose” of the impending petition. “Daily Basis”.

“That is enough. Look at the court. It is packed with litigants. Be polite,” the court said.

Mr Kumar was placed on the bench of the Acting Chief Justice after his petition was transferred to him from Justice Subramonim Prasad’s court.

Justice Prasad, while disposing of the petition on April 8, said the petition was filed for “publicity” and “heavy costs” should be levied for it.

In his petition, Kumar said the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener “became incapacitated” after Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case related to Delhi’s now-defunct GST policy “. “Discharging the duties of the Chief Minister in accordance with the Constitution.

Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED on March 21, hours after the High Court refused to grant him protection from enforcement action by the federal anti-money laundering agency.

He is currently in judicial custody.

The petition said the AAP leader’s “absence” complicates the constitutional machinery and he can never serve as chief minister from jail as mandated by the constitution.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)