New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Centre, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Delhi Chief Secretary to restrain Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal from issuing official orders while in ED custody.
The petitioner, Surjit Singh Yadav, a resident of Delhi and self-proclaimed farmer and social worker, had sought direction to the ED not to provide a typist, computer, and printer, among other things, to Arvind Kejriwal while he is in its custody.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the probe agency on Monday to address concerns raised about Arvind Kejriwal’s access to computer, printer, and other devices.
The bench urged the ED to bring the matter to the attention of the district judge overseeing the Chief Minister’s case after the petitioner raised apprehensions regarding Arvind Kejriwal’s access to such equipment.
During the proceedings, the ED submitted a note to the court affirming that they hadn’t provided any such apparatus to the Chief Minister. However, they assured that the agency is aware of the issue and will take necessary action if required.
The court suggested treating the petition as a representation and advised the ED to present it before the trial court. It said: “This court directs the ED to bring the contents of the note to the attention of the district judge dealing with the case, to pass orders in accordance with law. The court has not commented on the locus of the petitioner and all points on merits are left open.”
In response to the petitioner’s concerns, Arvind Kejriwal’s counsel Rahul Mehra questioned the basis of the apprehension and stressed the need for material evidence to invoke the court’s writ jurisdiction.
Mehra expressed concerns about third-party interference in ED’s investigation, stating that it could potentially lead to unwarranted complications.
Despite Mehra’s objections, the court insisted on treating the petition as a representation, stressing the importance of addressing any potential issues raised by the petitioner.
Yadav, in his PIL, had also sought direction to the Centre and the ED to register a complaint, investigate how the directions or orders issued by him while in custody reached Delhi Minister Atishi, and prosecute him.
He had alleged that Arvind Kejriwal is issuing directions or orders in the capacity of Delhi Chief Minister, and this is against the legal framework. He claimed this may influence the fair and proper investigation by the ED.
–IANS
Comments are closed.