Phansi Ghar row: Delhi Assembly opposes pleas filed by Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia in High Court

The Delhi Legislative Assembly Secretariat on Wednesday termed as “misconceived” the petition filed by former Chief Minister (CM) Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia before the Delhi High Court, against the summons issued to them by the Privileges Committee over alleged misuse of public funds for renovating the phansi ghar (execution chamber) inside the Assembly premises..The matter was listed before Justice Sachin Datta who had earlier questioned the maintainability of the plea. After brief arguments, the Court posted the matter for further hearing on November 24..According to the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government, the 'phansi ghar' dates back to be the British-era. However, the current BJP-led government has disputed the claim, stating the structure was originally a service staircase/tiffin-room over which AAP leaders inappropriately spent public funds. During a session of the Assembly in September, Speaker Vijender Gupta is reported to have alleged that the Kejriwal government spent ₹1 crore to renovate the spot to make it look like a prison, by 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. .Challenging the summons, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appearing for the AAP leaders today argued that the Privilege Committee of the Legislative Assembly could not inquire over the phansi ghar. He said that the phansi ghar has no connection with the legislative function of the Assembly.“The Phansi Ghar is not an essential and necessary functioning of the Delhi Legislative Assembly. The burden of proof is on them to show how the issue is connected to them.The test is always routine legislative business. There is no legislative business here. Judicial review lies in this case,” Farasat said..However, Justice Datta did not appear to be convinced with the argument,"The Phansi Ghar is in their precincts. The House has control on its precincts or not?" the judge asked. .Continuing with his submissions, Farasat argued that the Privileges Committee cannot take any coercive action against the AAP leaders. "It's a coercive exercise of power by the Committee. The Privilege Committee can only do one thing, to determine if privilege has been violated," he said.Farasat also contended that the phansi ghar was inaugurated in 2022, and that the then Assembly was dissolved thereafter"The new house does not have the jurisdiction to issue summons to them," he submitted.Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta for the Delhi legislative assembly stated that the petition was misconceived. "The petition is misconceived in this classic case of jumping [the gun], trying to avoid something which is only for a factual inquiry. He has not made one whisper on the issue regarding the Phansi Ghar," Mehta argued.Mehta further submitted that the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges for examination and authenticity of the phansi ghar."It is only a factual enquiry to make a recommendation. The committee has to conduct an enquiry and has called the person to enquire about the Phansi Ghar," Mehta said.The Court was also told that the notice regarding the enquiry into the issue was sent to four recipients, of which only the AAP leaders have moved the Court. .In their plea, Kejriwal and Sisodia have 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 said. .[Read live coverage].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.