The Delhi HC delivered a significant blow to the AAP leaders, dismissing the plea challenging ‘phansi ghar’ summons as not maintainable. Read the full legal analysis of the court’s decision and the political fallout.
Delhi HC Kejriwal Sisodia Phansi Ghar Plea
In a significant legal development that carries heavy political ramifications for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Delhi High Court has ruled against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. The Court declared their joint plea challenging the summons related to the widely publicized ‘phansi ghar’ case as not maintainable. This decision is a major legal hurdle for the two senior political figures and forces them to confront the proceedings in the lower court.
The phrase ‘phansi ghar’—literally translating to ‘hanging house’ or gallows—has become a politically charged term linked to a specific instance of public speech or action that became the subject of a criminal complaint. While the exact details of the originating complaint are central to the case, the core of the legal battle involved the two AAP leaders seeking the quashing of the summons issued by a lower court, which required them to appear and answer the charges.
The High Court’s ruling that the Kejriwal Sisodia plea on ‘phansi ghar’ summons was not maintainable means the petition failed to meet the necessary legal requirements or jurisdiction for the higher court to intervene at this stage. Essentially, the High Court determined that the proper legal process must be followed, indicating that the leaders must address the summons and argue the merits of their case before the magistrate court that originally issued the orders. This procedural dismissal is a significant setback, as it closes an avenue for quickly disposing of the case at a higher judicial level.
