Today, the Delhi High Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aimed to limit media coverage and public discussions concerning the resignation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the potential enforcement of President's Rule in Delhi.

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the bench, criticized Advocate Shrikant, stating that the PIL attempted to suppress political dissent, an issue outside the court's jurisdiction.

The court remarked, "What do we do? Impose emergency? Impose censorship or martial law? What do we do? How do we pass gag orders against the press and political rivals?… how do we do that?".

Advocate Shrikant Prasad initiated the PIL, drawing attention to the alleged bias of the media against the Delhi government and accusing it of  interfering in the democratic process. He contended that the Delhi government's endeavors had garnered praise from international media and esteemed institutions.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Union of India, argued that the petition lacked merit and was driven by hidden agendas.

The court noted that since Kejriwal had already appealed to the Supreme Court concerning his potential arrest, which was being reviewed for interim release, the matters raised in the petition had become irrelevant. Despite acknowledging the strides made by Delhi in education and healthcare during the past seven years, the court deemed the suggested drastic actions unwarranted in the present circumstances.

The court emphasized its lack of authority to censor the media or silence political opponents calling for Kejriwal's resignation. It pointed out the impracticality of resorting to martial law to quell dissent and underscored the importance of upholding freedom of speech.

Regarding the legality of governance from jail, the court remarked on the absence of explicit prohibition in the Constitution or any law. However, it scrutinized the petitioner's request for a gag order against the press, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility in protecting press freedom under Article 226.