The counsel for the petitioner today told the Court that Kejriwal is not fit to hold the post of CM.
“He is not fit to hold post of Chief Minister. There are duties that need to be performed by Chief Minister,” it was submitted.
The Court then asked counsel to brief the bench under what circumstances President’s Rule can be imposed in a State and also if there were other instances where a Court has ordered the removal of a Chief Minister in a State.
The petitioner’s counsel started reading out a case law but the Court was not impressed and proceeded to caution the petitioner.
“We will impose some heavy costs on you now! This is the third time! (in that case read out) there is a disqualification of Article 164 that is attracted,” the Court remarked.
The Court also noted that the single-judge who had earlier heard the plea had warned the petitioner, but that the petitioner had pursued the matter despite such warnings.
“I will impose costs on you know because you are pursuing despite my brother (Justice Subramonium Prasad) having warned you! We have specifically said this is not like a James Bond film which will have sequels,” the bench said.
Costs are the only way to curb such petitions, it added.
“If I don’t have government as per Constitution, where should I go? Only this Court,” the petitioner replied.
The Court, however, said that litigants like the petitioner have reduced the judicial system to a joke.
“(If you want) please go challenge in Supreme Court, stop making a mockery of this system! It is only because of people like your clients, that we are reduced to a joke. We will have to increase your costs,” the bench warned before rising.
Source: Barandbench
