Delhi HC nixes plea seeking video conferencing facility for Arvind Kejriwal to run govt from jail, ‘gag’ against media

The PIL filed by Shrikant Prasad, an advocate, sought directions to the Delhi government to provide arrangements for “efficient governance of Delhi” by allowing Kejriwal to do “video conferencing interaction” with the Assembly members and cabinet ministers, subject to any conditions that may be imposed.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested Kejriwal from his residence in March in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court deferred its order on his interim bail plea.

The Delhi High Court said since Kejriwal had already filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging his arrest by the ED and the apex court is seized of the matter, “no orders for allowing the CM to interact with his ministers and MLAs via video conferencing is called for”.

The PIL sought a direction to the Union Ministry of Information, Technology and Broadcasting to restrain media from “creating due pressure and airing sensational headlines” related to Kejriwal’s “resignation” and “imposing President rule in Delhi”.

It also sought a direction to refrain Delhi BJP president Virendra Sachdeva from exerting any “undue pressure by protest or statement” on the chief minister and to “initiate action for gathering illegal assembly” for protest at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg on April 10.

During the hearing, the bench orally asked Prasad, “You are a lawyer. Tell us, can the courts impose censorship under Article 226? You are asking for a gag order. Do you think we can pass that? Is that our normal jurisdiction?… So, we impose emergency, censorship, and martial law? How do we gag the press and political rivals? Your prayer (c) is against a political party from making any statements and demanding resignation”.

Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, said the PIL was “misconceived” and, in fact, as per the petition, the “petitioner is a permanent Jharkhand” and has filed the petition for “oblique” reasons.

The PIL stated that neither the Constitution of India nor any law prohibits any minister, including the chief minister, from governing the government from a Prison complex by remaining in Judicial custody.

The petitioner said that Delhi’s governance for the “last seven years has an excellent track record.” The plea submitted that Sachdeva was exerting “tremendous pressure” by holding mass-level protests and affecting the traffic and peace of the state public “merely with politically motivated malafides.”

The bench then orally told the petitioner, “Please keep a bank draft of Rs 1 lakh ready. That’s all we can say.”

Prasad argued that while it is logically impractical to run the government from inside the jail, various impractical things have been made practical through the use of technology.