The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the disqualification of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections, holding the petition to be “highly misconceived.”

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia rejected the contention that an earlier contempt order passed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reflected the AAP leaders’ lack of allegiance to the Constitution.

Calling the submissions “absolutely baseless and bereft of any consideration,” the Court observed that the contempt order could only be read in the context of the specific case in which it was passed and not for any wider purpose.

The PIL, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, had also sought directions to the Election Commission of India to de-register the Aam Aadmi Party. However, the Court held that the Election Commission has no power to review its decision once a political party has been registered.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian National Congress (I) vs Institute of Social Welfare, the bench reiterated that a political party can only be de-registered in limited circumstances, such as when registration was obtained through fraud, when the party changes its nomenclature contrary to statutory requirements, or when the party itself declares that it no longer has faith in the Constitution.

The Court found that none of these exceptions applied in the present case and termed the petitioner’s arguments “too far-fetched.” It clarified that allegations of undermining the dignity of the Court, if established, could be addressed under the Contempt of Courts Act, but could not become a ground for de-registering a political party.

During the hearing, the bench repeatedly questioned the petitioner on whether any statutory provision exists permitting de-registration of a political party. The Court observed that even if individual leaders were found guilty of contempt, that by itself would not automatically result in disqualification from elections or cancellation of the party’s registration.

The matter was titled SH. SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.