A bench of Justice Sachin Datta took up the matter briefly before listing it for further hearing on 24 November.
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat began arguments by pointing out that the Eighth Legislative Assembly cannot issue notice or summon members of the previous or Seventh Legislative Assembly for events that occurred during their tenure, according to the top court in its 2016 ruling in the case of former Punjab CM Amarinder Singh.
On the other hand, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said the AAP leaders’ plea was “misconceived”.
During the hearing, Justice Sachin Datta orally asked, “The issue is outside the scope of judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution?” While the respondents argued that the issue is squarely covered by virtue of the immunity extended to statements made in Parliament or legislative assemblies, the AAP leaders said this wasn’t so as the issue was not integrally connected to the functioning of the legislative assembly, as established precedent dictates.
The court then proceeded to list the matter for further hearing on 24 November.
What is the case?
The dispute stems from the 22 August 2022 inauguration of a renovated section within the Delhi Assembly complex. The then AAP government, led by Arvind Kejriwal, had showcased the space as a restored British-era phansi ghar—a colonial gallows chamber—complete with murals of freedom fighters, symbolic iron bars, and nooses to evoke the memory of India’s freedom struggle.
After the change in government, the BJP-led administration challenged this portrayal, claiming the structure was actually a service staircase or ‘tiffin’ room. During an assembly session in September, Speaker Vijender Gupta accused the Kejriwal government of spending around Rs 1 crore of public funds to “fabricate” a historical site and promote a misleading narrative.
The issue was subsequently referred to the Assembly’s Privileges Committee, chaired by BJP MLA Pradyumn Singh Rajput, which issued notices and later summons to Kejriwal and former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia to help “verify the authenticity of the phansi ghar”.
What Kejriwal and Sisodia said in plea
Delhi Assembly Rules require every member to be given a notice in writing, before any question of privilege is raised, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM Manish Sisodia told the Delhi High Court in their plea, which challenges the summons issued to them by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi.
Among other grounds raised by the Aam Aadmi Party leaders, were also that the “brick-and-mortar restoration of a structure” called the phansi ghar by them during the tenure of the Seventh Legislative in 2022 related to the administrative management of a property, and was not an obstruction to legislative business.
AAP leaders argued that the summons issued to them were not based on any complaint, report or motion of breach of privilege or contempt, and amounted to a violation of their right to life and equality, among others.
Grounds for challenge
On Wednesday, the HC started hearing a challenge to the summons issued to Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, by the Legislative Assembly of Delhi, earlier this month which required them to personally appear before its Committee of Privileges on 13 November.
Underlining that verifying the authenticity of the structure (which is what the Assembly’s Privileges Committee had asked the AAP leaders to do) was wholly extraneous to or outside the scope of legislative privilege, the AAP leaders argued that although they had replied to the 9 September notice, it was not considered by the legislative assembly. They also pointed out that the summons issued this month did not make any reference to the objections or grounds raised by the petitioners in their replies.
Parliamentary or legislative privilege is enjoyed by members of each house or assembly. It includes certain rights, privileges and immunities given to members, without which they cannot effectively perform their functions in an efficient manner. Examples of such privilege include freedom of speech and expression and immunity for statements made in the house or assembly, especially when it comes to these being challenged in court.
The proceedings, which were also under challenge in this case, were not based on any complaint, report or motion of breach of privilege or contempt, the petitioners argued.
Invoking Rules 66, 68, 70, 82 or Chapter XI of the Assembly Rules, which deal with when questions of breach of privilege or contempt can be raised, the conditions for admissibility of a question, or presentation of a complaint and the procedure governing the breach of privilege or contempt by a member, respectively, they argued that verifying the “authenticity” of restored site fell beyond the scope of the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s functions and especially outside the bounds of its Privileges Committee.
Saying that the proceedings suffer from a lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegalities, constitutional infirmities and a “colourable exercise” of legislative power, the petitioners sought to have it set aside.
Recalling Rules 220-223 of the Assembly Rules, the petitioners argued that the Committee’s role is limited to examining whether there is a breach of privilege, or whether contempt has taken place. It has no power to conduct historical or factual verification, which is unrelated to legislative proceedings, the plea argued.
What does procedure dictate?
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Raja Ram Pal vs Lok Sabha, the petitioners argued that parliamentary privilege only extends to acts connected with the overall functioning of the legislature, while adding that the symbolic inauguration of a structure had no connection to the functioning of the assembly.
Nine years later, the Supreme Court in Amarinder Singh vs. Punjab Vidhan Sabha, held that the jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee lasts until the life of the House, and lapses once it is dissolved. “The initiation of fresh proceedings in 2025 to examine a 2022 event is barred by legislative discontinuity,” the AAP plea said, while adding that the 8th Assembly is a distinct constitutional entity.
Finally, the plea recalled the two-fold privilege immunity test, which requires that an act must be integrally connected to the House’s collective functioning and must be necessary for discharging legislative duties, in order to form the basis for initiating proceedings against someone.
Emphasising that these conditions could not be satisfied in the present case, the petitioner said that the notices failed to disclose specific charges or materials relied on by the assembly. They also said they were compelled to approach the court, as they had been denied a meaningful opportunity to respond.