'Delhi High Court Slams Arvind Kejriwal for Prioritizing Personal Interests over Resignation
On Friday, the Delhi High Court delivered a scathing verdict against Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, for his refusal to resign following his arrest in the Delhi liquor policy case. The court's criticism centered on Kejriwal's alleged prioritization of personal interests over national obligations.
'By not resigning as Chief Minister after his arrest, Arvind Kejriwal has put personal interest over national interest,' the court remarked.
The court extended its disapproval to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government, describing it as 'only interested in power.' The criticism stemmed from the government's alleged neglect of its responsibilities towards education, evident in the absence of essential resources like textbooks and uniforms for students in government schools.
'Your client is just interested in power. I don't know how much power do you want,' the court observed.
Previously, the High Court had emphasized the need for an appropriate authority to hold financial power in the absence of a functional Standing Committee. This directive was issued following concerns raised by the MCD Commissioner over the non-distribution of essential educational materials, attributed to the non-formation of Standing Committees.
However, the court was informed by the Delhi government's counsel that the Chief Minister's consent, currently in custody, was necessary for delegating financial powers.
Responding to this, the court expressed its disapproval, stating, 'It's your choice that you said government will continue despite the Chief Minister being in custody. You are forcing us to go down the road we did not want to go.'
The court went on to criticize the Urban Development Minister, Saurabh Bhardwaj, for his alleged indifference towards the students' plight, accusing him of 'shedding crocodile tears.'
The Delhi government's counsel attempted to justify the lack of a Standing Committee by citing the illegal appointment of aldermen by the Lieutenant Governor and the pending Supreme Court case.
While acknowledging that the distribution of books was not the court's responsibility, the court expressed its compulsion to address the issue due to the government's apparent failure to fulfill its obligations.'
