AAP v. BJP: Five legal battles of 2022 in Delhi High Court

Since its establishment in 1966, the Delhi High Court has been the seat of major civil, criminal and commercial cases which are often of a political nature, thanks to its location/ jurisdiction over the national capital..The year 2022 was no different and while the High Court continued to be in the limelight for its observations, orders and judgments, the year was defined by the legal battles between Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government and the BJP-led Central government and agencies like Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which are under the Centre.As polls for Gujarat assembly and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) drew close, the legal tussle between the BJP and the AAP only intensified with the latter even coming to court to restrain media from reporting leaks.Bail hearings of AAP minister Satyendar Jain, public interest litigation (PIL) petitions against attack on Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s house, defamation suit by Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena and pleas against leaks to the media grabbed headlines.Below are some of the major legal battles which played out in the Delhi High Court between the two governments..Delhi’s health minister Satyendar Jain was arrested by the ED in June on allegations of money laundering. Though his first bail application was denied by special judge Geetanjali Goel, it was his second bail plea which became a media spectacle.Just as the judge was about to reserve her orders in the bail plea, the ED sought a transfer of case from judge Geetanjali Goel alleging bias. Interestingly, the judge had rebuked the ED for its investigation in the case.The district judge allowed ED’s application and transferred the matter to judge Vikas Dhull.However, this was only the beginning of a long-drawn-out battle.Jail challenged the district judge’s order in the High Court which heard the matter for one entire day. Justice Yogesh Khanna of the High Court then dismissed the plea noting that the question is not of integrity or uprightness of the judge from whom the case was transferred but of apprehension in the mind of the ED.The order was then challenged before the Supreme Court, however, the plea was later withdrawn and the bail application was argued before special judge Vikas Dhull who rejected the plea. .Jain’s bail plea is now pending before the High Court and listed for hearing in January 2023..Within weeks of taking over as the new Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Vinai Kumar Saxena called for a probe by a CBI probe into allegations of corruption in Delhi’s new excise policy.The CBI and the ED soon swung into action and arrested AAP leaders including its communications in-charge Vijay Nair.The media reported extensively not only on the court proceedings and the investigating agencies’ communications to the journalists but also on the questioning of Nair and others. Some news channels even revealed the disclosures that had been made by them.This led to Nair filing a petition before the Delhi High Court alleging that sensitive information regarding his case was leaked by the ED and the CBI to the media, thereby prejudicing his rights as an accused.The High Court pulled up five news channels – Republic TV, Times Now, India Today, Zee News and TV9 – for their coverage and directed them to ensure that all broadcasts carried by them on the ongoing investigation in Delhi Excise Policy case are "in tune" with the "official press releases" by the investigating agencies..The tussle between AAP leaders and Delhi LG reached the High Court this year as VK Saxena sued AAP leaders Sanjay Singh, Atishi, Saurabh Bhardwaj, Jasmine Shah and Durgesh Pathak for defamation.The AAP had alleged that Saxena had pressured his employees to exchange demonetised currencies.They also alleged financial irregularities to the tune of ₹1,400 crore when Saxena was heading the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) and that he misused his position and awarded a contract for the interior design of Khadi lounge in Mumbai to his daughter.After hearing the case, Justice Amit Bansal concluded that the allegations that Saxena was involved in corruption was "completely unsubstantiated". The Court said that there was no material to substantiate the allegation that Saxena paid nearly ₹80 crore to his daughter to renovate the KVIC. On the allegations of cash payments to weavers in Bihar, the Court said that there was nothing in the Patna High Court order that personally indicted Saxena.The Court, therefore, restrained AAP leaders from making allegations of corruption against Saxena..The Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) activists led by BJP MP Tejasvi Surya allegedly vandalised Arvind Kejriwal’s house following Kejriwal’s comments on the movie “The Kashmir Files”.This prompted AAP MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj to file a PIL before the High Court seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe. He alleged that Delhi Police was “hand in glove with the goons as the goons were members of the ruling party in the Central government, which has absolute control over Delhi Police through the Ministry of Home Affairs.”The High Court called for a status report on the incident in a sealed cover saying that it wants to be satisfied that the Delhi Police is taking the matter seriously.Police filed a report stating that it has arrested several people who were involved in the incident and has beefed up security at the CM's residence. The High Court directed it to share the report with the Delhi government and the PIL was finally withdrawn..The Delhi LG ordered the Delhi government’s planning department to restrict AAP politician Jasmine Shah from discharging the functions of vice-chairman of Dialogue and Development Commission of Delhi (DDCD). Following the order, Shah’s official vehicle was taken away and his office was sealed.Saxena also asked Arvind Kejriwal to consider removing Shah from his post altogether.Shah challenged the order before the High Court which refused to pass an interim order allowing Shah to regain access to his office but it sought response from the LG and the planning department.In the meantime, the Court was told that the LG's request to remove Shah had not been acceded to and the planning department has been ordered to rescind its order closing Shah's office and withdrawing facilities accorded to him.On the next hearing, the planning department filed an affidavit in the court stating that because of the difference of opinion between the CM and LG, the matter has been referred to the President.The Court will hear the case next on January 9.