The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to remove Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the money laundering case connected to the Delhi excise policy scam.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the petitioner was attempting to drag the Court into political thicket and proceeded to say that it would impose costs of ₹50,000 on him.

"You are trying to involve us in political thicket! That's all... Okay, 50,000 costs on you, we will order. This is enough. This is the fourth round. Our board is full with litigants who have cause," the Court said.

The bench made it clear that it will not entertain political arguments inside the Court.

"Please don't give a political speech over here! Go to parlor or street. Don't involve us in political thicket," the Court said.

The plea, a writ petition, was filed by Sandeep Kumar stating that Kejriwal, though incapacitated, was continuing to hold the office of the Chief Minister of Delhi which not only raises several constitutional complications but also violates the guarantee of Right to Life of the people in Delhi.

Kumar sought a writ of quo warranto against Kejriwal, calling upon him to demonstrate by what authority, qualification, and title he holds the office of Chief Minister of Delhi under Article 239AA of the Constitution. After an inquiry, Kumar requested that Kejriwal be removed from the office of Chief Minister of Delhi, with or without retrospective effect.

The counsel for the petitioner today told the Court that Kejriwal is not fit to hold the post of CM.

"He is not fit to hold post of Chief Minister. There are duties that need to be performed by Chief Minister," it was submitted.

The Court then asked counsel to brief the bench under what circumstances President's Rule can be imposed in a State and also if there were other instances where a Court has ordered the removal of a Chief Minister in a State.

The petitioner's counsel started reading out a case law but the Court was not impressed and proceeded to caution the petitioner.

"We will impose some heavy costs on you now! This is the third time! (in that case read out) there is a disqualification of Article 164 that is attracted," the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that the single-judge who had earlier heard the plea had warned the petitioner, but that the petitioner had pursued the matter despite such warnings.

"I will impose costs on you know because you are pursuing despite my brother (Justice Subramonium Prasad) having warned you! We have specifically said this is not like a James Bond film which will have sequels," the bench said.

Costs are the only way to curb such petitions, it added.

"If I don't have government as per Constitution, where should I go? Only this Court," the petitioner replied.

The Court, however, said that litigants like the petitioner have reduced the judicial system to a joke.

"(If you want) please go challenge in Supreme Court, stop making a mockery of this system! It is only because of people like your clients, that we are reduced to a joke. We will have to increase your costs," the bench warned before rising.

This was the third petition filed before the High Court to remove Kejriwal as CM that the High Court has dismissed.

Two petitions filed earlier had been dismissed by the Court.

The current plea was first listed before Justice Subramonium Prasad who criticised the petitioner Sandeep Kumar, a former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA for filing it though two similar petitions filed by others had already been rejected by the High Court earlier.

"Heavy costs should be imposed on you," the Court had remarked.

The single-judge had further said that similar matters had been heard and rejected by the bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and the present plea was nothing but a publicity interest petition.

The Court had eventually transferred the matter to the bench of the Acting Chief Justice since that bench had heard similar petitions before.

Earlier, on March 28, the High Court had rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by one Surjit Singh Yadav.

The High Court had then said that it is for the executive and the President to examine the issue and the Court cannot interfere with the same.

Thereafter, on April 4, the Court refused to entertain another PIL by Vishnu Gupta, who is the president of Hindu Sena. The Court said it would be Kejriwal's personal call to continue as the CM or not.

Nevertheless, the bench did drop a subtle hint.

“At times, personal interest has to be subordinate to national interest but that is his (Kejriwal's) personal call,” it remarked.