The Delhi High Court on Tuesday expressed reservations about the maintainability of a plea filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia challenging a summons issued to them by the privileges committee of the Delhi legislative assembly.
The summons was issued over allegations that Kejriwal and Sisodia misused public funds for renovating the Phansi Ghar (execution chamber) inside the legislative assembly.
Justice Sachin Datta today heard a plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders challenging the summons, when the judge expressed that their plea was, prima facie, not maintainable.
However, the Court eventually adjourned the case till tomorrow after counsel appearing for the Delhi Assembly requested an adjournment.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appeared for the Delhi legislative assembly today and challenged the maintainability of the plea.
However, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Kejriwal and Sisodia, said that the plea is maintainable and that the petitioners’ case is covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The summons in question arose from a controversy over a structure within the Assembly complex, claimed by the previous Aam Aadmi Party government to be a British-era “phansi ghar” (execution chamber) and inaugurated in August 2022 in the presence of Kejriwal and other AAP leaders.
However, the current BJP-led government disputes the claim, stating the structure was originally a service staircase/ tiffin-room and that Kejriwal, Sisodia and others distorted history and spent public funds inappropriately over the "fabricated site".
According to reports, during the Assembly session in September, Speaker Vijender Gupta had alleged that the Kejriwal government spent ₹1 crore to renovate the spot to make it look like a prison, installing murals of freedom fighters, symbolic iron bars and even a pair of nooses.
The privileges committee, headed by BJP MLA Pradyumn Singh Rajput, is set to meet on November 13 to examine the authenticity of the structure.
In their plea, Kejriwal and Sisodia argued that the privileges committee proceedings are not founded on any complaint or report or motion of breach of privilege or contempt.
"No procedure applicable for privileges committee under Rules 66, 68, 70, 82, or Chapter XI of the Assembly Rules has been followed," the AAP leaders have said.
Further, it is their argument that the Committee appears to be for verifying the authenticity of the structure, a function "beyond the remit of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and especially its Privileges Committee".
"The proceedings suffer from lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegalities, constitutional infirmities, and colourable exercise of legislative power. They violate the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and are liable to be quashed," the plea states.