Introduction:

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the de-recognition of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for allegedly violating a Supreme Court order regarding the disclosure of criminal antecedents by political candidates and parties. The PIL was filed by Ashwani Mudgal, a social worker and former Member of the Delhi Rural Development Board who also holds the position of Senior Vice President at Shri Sanatan Dharam Mandir Trust.

Arguments:

Mudgal argued that the AAP and its candidates disclose the criminal antecedents related to their involvement in the alleged liquor scam. He argued that such a failure violated the Supreme Court’s directions, which mandated that political parties and their candidates must provide details of any criminal cases they face.

Judgement:

The division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing the matter, rejected the PIL and emphasised that the appropriate course of action would be to approach the Supreme Court for any instance of non-compliance with its verdict. Justice Gedela remarked that since the Supreme Court had already passed a judgment on the matter, a contempt petition should have been filed before the Apex Court in case of non-compliance. The Court also pointed out that a PIL under Article 226 could not be entertained in this instance, as it was not within their jurisdiction to pass such directions.

Mudgal’s petition, which sought the de-recognition of AAP, was founded on the argument that the political party had failed to comply with the Apex Court’s ruling. He also sought a show-cause notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for not acting against AAP for its non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. During the proceedings, the Court noted that no legal provision empowered the Election Commission to de-recognize a political party. The counsel for the ECI clarified that the Commission could not act on the petition as no such provision existed. Justice Gedela further explained that if the petitioner believed that the political party had violated the Supreme Court’s directives, the correct approach would be to file a petition before the Supreme Court.

Justice Upadhyay also emphasised that the PIL did not pertain to individual cases or nominations but was a general plea concerning non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. The Court observed that the petitioner was essentially asking for two things: the de-recognition of AAP and issuing a show-cause notice to the Election Commission. However, as the Court explained, there was no provision in law for the de-recognition or suspension of a political party by the Election Commission. Furthermore, since the Election Commission had no such authority, it would not be required to show cause. The Court clarified that the petition could not be entertained under the current legal framework.

After considerable arguments, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the PIL, requesting liberty to approach the Supreme Court with the issue. The Court granted this request, dismissing the petition as withdrawn and leaving the petitioner free to approach the Supreme Court for any further action.

This decision by the Delhi High Court underscores the limitations of PILs when there is no clear legal provision for the relief sought, especially in matters concerning the recognition or suspension of political parties. It also highlights the procedural requirement of approaching the appropriate authority, in this case, the Supreme Court, for any non-compliance with its rulings.