PIL for ‘extraordinary interim bail’ for Kejriwal: After law student’s unconditional apology, Delhi High Court waives cost of Rs 75,000

On April 22, the high court dismissed the PIL petition, imposing costs of Rs 75,000 on the petitioner which had to be deposited with the ‘AIIMS Poor Fund’ in four weeks.

On Monday, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora took note of the petitioner’s application seeking a waiver of costs. The application stated that the petitioner is a student, has no income of his own, and is dependent on his parents.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner said his client had tendered an unconditional apology for his actions before the court. He said the petitioner, after reading the high court’s April 22 order, understood the judicial system. He also said that after reading the court’s order the petitioner had “learned his lesson” and prayed that the cost may be waived.

“The court had imposed a cost on the petitioner as the contentions advanced were contrary to the facts and circumstances and the legal submissions were untenable in law,” the bench said.

Taking note of the petitioner’s unconditional apology, the bench waived the cost it had imposed on the student.

However, it directed that if the petitioner or its deponent were to file a fresh proceeding/plea in the court, a copy of Monday’s order and the April 22 order would be annexed to that fresh proceeding.

In its April 22 order, the bench held that the PIL was not maintainable as Kejriwal was in judicial custody in “pursuance to judicial orders which have not been challenged in the present writ petition”.

The bench had also said, “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”.

The bench held that the petitioner’s claim to be the custodian and representative of the people of India is a “fanciful claim devoid of any basis.”

“This court finds it odd that the petitioner boasts to have been entrusted with a ‘veto power’ which according to him is sufficient to give concession to any accused upon being arrested. It is even more strange that the petitioner has offered to extend a personal bond in favour of respondent no. 5 (Kejriwal) and has undertaken that the respondent no. 5 will not try to influence witnesses or try to destroy evidence or try to flee from justice,” it had said.

“The petitioner holds no power of attorney on behalf of respondent no. 5 (Kejriwal) to either make such statements/undertaking on his behalf or extend such personal bonds. The glaring lack of locus standi is further augmented by the fact that the petitioner is a stranger to the criminal proceedings against respondent no. 5 (Kejriwal),” the bench had said.

Regarding the petitioner’s submission that the chief minister’s incarceration had led to difficulties in the functioning of the Delhi government, the bench had referred to its March 28 order (passed in a plea seeking Kejriwal’s removal as the CM), where it had observed that it cannot, in its writ jurisdiction, remove Kejriwal from the post of the chief minister or declare the breakdown of constitutional machinery in Delhi.