Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest: How Chief Minister Is Removed & Why Courts Can’t Do Much
[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court has so far dismissed three petitions to remove Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from his position after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case linked to the now scrapped Delhi Liquor Policy. Unlike past instances where chief ministers resigned before being arrested, Kejriwal chose to run his government from the Tihar Jail. This has sparked political as well as legal debates over the question if a person can continue to be a chief minister after his arrest.
How A Chief Minister Can Be Removed In India?
According to the Indian Constitution, a chief minister can be removed either by the Governor or by the State Legislature. Article 164 of the Indian Constitution lays down the procedure for appointment of a Chief Minister. The party or coalition group which secures majority in the State Assembly, elects its leader and communicates his name to the Governor. The Governor then formally appoints him as the Chief Minister and asks him to form his Council of Ministers. In case no party gets a clear majority in the Assembly, the Governor invites the leader of the single largest party to form the government.
ALSO READ | Why Delhi HC Rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s Plea Against Arrest In Delhi Liquor Policy Case
There are two ways to remove a CM:
1) The Governor can dismiss a Chief Minister after he loses his majority support in the State Assembly.
2) The State Legislative Assembly can remove the CM by passing a vote of no-confidence against him.
A CM remains in office so long as he continues to be the leader of the majority in the Legislative Assembly.
Why Delhi HC Rejected Petitions To Remove Kejriwal?
The Indian Constitution functions on the principle of “checks and balances.” Powers have been divided between the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive in such a way that no-one enjoys absolute power. The Judiciary acts in accordance with existing laws. The high court held that the Constitution has laid this power in hands of the Executive, i.e. the Governor and President in this case and there exists no scope for judicial review.
The court observed that there is no legal bar on Arvind Kejriwal continuing in the office of Chief Minister from judicial custody.
The third petitioner moved a writ petition saying that the court can issue the writ of “quo warranto” against Kejriwal.
Quo-warranto writ is issued by a court to a person asking him/her that ‘by what authority or warrant they are holding a public office.
But, here also that writ is issued to enquire into the legality of the claim of a person in that public office. This writ could be issued against Kejriwal over his way of obtaining office of CM, i.e his elections were proven as illegal or by corrupt means.
This writ empowers courts to prevent illegal occupation of public office by a person.
Here, Kejriwal’s election was not challenged but his continuation on post after arrest was challenged.
[ad_2]
Source link