‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’, reiterates Delhi High Court while dismissing petition seeking extraordinary interim bail for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan & Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora [22-04-2024]

Read Order: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [DEL HC- W.P.(CRL) 1203/2024]

Tulip Kanth 

New Delhi, April 23, 2024: The Delhi High Court has imposed Rs 75,000 cost while dismissing a petition seeking extraordinary interim bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. The High Court opined that the petitioner's claim, to be a custodian and representative of the people of India, was a fanciful claim which was devoid of any basis.  

The public interest petition had been filed allegedly on behalf of the ‘People of India’ seeking grant of extraordinary interim bail to Respondent No.5 i.e. the Chief Minister of the NCT of Delhi, in all criminal cases which have been registered by the authorities and are pending inquiry and/or trial. The petitioner sought extraordinary interim bail against his personal bond, whereby the Petitioner had undertaken that respondent no.5 will not influence the witnesses involved, or try to destroy the evidence or try to flee from justice.

The petitioner claimed to have ‘veto power’, which was sufficient to give any concession to any accused, if arrested and/or confined in jail under judicial custody. It was also averred that the inquiry and/or trial of the criminal cases registered against the CM will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars till conclusion of such inquiry/investigation. Thus, it was urged that extraordinary interim bail be granted to respondent no.5, till the completion of his tenure and/or till the completion of criminal trials, whichever is earlier.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, at the outset, observed that the present writ petition was not maintainable as the respondent no. 5 is in judicial custody in pursuance to judicial orders, which were not challenged in the writ petition.

The Bench asserted, “Further this Court is of the view that it is important to bear in mind the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution of India and the basic tenet of rule of law: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the Constitution of India.”

According to the Bench, the petitioner’s claim to be custodian and representative of the people of India, was nothing but a fanciful claim which was devoid of any basis. The petitioner also had no power of attorney on behalf of respondent no.5 to either make such statements/undertakings on his behalf or extend such personal bonds.

It was further noticed that the respondent no. 5 who is currently in judicial custody, has the means and the wherewithal to approach the Court and file appropriate proceedings, which he had already done before this Court as well as the Apex Court. Consequently, the High Court was of the view that no relaxation of the principle of locus standi was called for in the present case.

With such observations, the Bench dismissed the writ petition along with the applications with costs of Rs.75,000 to be deposited with AIIMS Poor Fund within four weeks. The petitioner has also been directed to file with the Registry a proof of deposit of the cost within one week of deposit.