New Delhi The Delhi High Court (HC) on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking deregistration of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) over allegations that its leaders, including party convenor Arvind Kejriwal, and Manish Sisodia, acted contrary to constitutional principles through their conduct during proceedings before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea challenging the trial court’s discharge order in the excise policy case.The bench clarified that a political party cannot be deregistered merely on allegations that it failed to uphold constitutional valuesA bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the grounds cited by petitioner Satish Aggarwal for seeking deregistration—alleging that its members, though their conduct failed to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, were “not only misplaced, but also far-fetched and highly misconceived”.“The counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged the court that the manner in which respondents number 4 (Arvind Kejriwal), 5 (Manish Sisodia) and 6 (Durgesh Pathak) have conducted in the proceedings of the criminal revision petition, will amount to undermine the authority, majesty and dignity of this court and such ground is enough for the ECI (Election Commission of India) to consider de recognition of the political party to which these individuals belong. In a situation where any such conduct or act is found and established, where any individual is found to have undermined the court’s dignity, the appropriate remedy is available under the Contempt of Court Act. The petition is not only too far-fetched, but misconceived and highly misplaced,” the court said in its order.The court observed that, in terms of the Supreme Court’s (SC) ruling in Indian National Congress v. Institute of Social Welfare, the ECI can deregister a political party only in limited circumstances: when registration was obtained through fraud or forgery, when the party amends its nomenclature, rules or regulations in violation of Section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, or when the party informs the Commission that it no longer bears faith and allegiance to the Constitution or the principles of socialism, secularism, and the sovereignty and integrity of India.The bench clarified that a political party cannot be deregistered merely on allegations that it failed to uphold constitutional values, as there is no specific provision under the Act permitting such deregistration based on a complaint alone.Once a political party is registered, the Commission has no power of review, since no such authority has been conferred upon it under the law to revisit or cancel registration on the ground of alleged constitutional violations or breach of undertaking made at the time of registration, it added.“The law as settled by the SC in the Indian National Congress’s case is that no proceeding for de-registration can be taken by the ECI against a political party for having violated section 29A(5) of the Representation of the People’s Act (RP Act) on the complaint, since there does not exist any specific provision in the Act for the said purpose…,” the court said in its order.Regarding Aggarwal’s plea seeking to bar Kejriwal, Sisodia and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak from contesting elections on the ground that they allegedly lacked allegiance to the Constitution and therefore did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed by Parliament, the court said the contention was “absolutely baseless and bereft of any consideration”.An unprecedented face-off between Justice Sharma and Kejriwal began after the trial court discharged him and other AAP leaders in the excise policy case, prompting the CBI to approach the HC.On March 9, Justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate proceedings. Kejriwal sought to transfer the matter from her bench. Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya rejected this on March 13.On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia, and others sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, which she dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed Justice Sharma that he would boycott the proceedings. Sisodia and Pathak followed suit.On May 5, the court said it would appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.Justice Sharma, on May 14, initiated contempt proceedings and withdrew herself from hearing CBI’s appeal and contempt petition, saying that the law did not permit a judge who had initiated contempt proceedings in relation to a matter to continue hearing it.On Tuesday, two benches of the high court heard the contempt case and CBI’s appeal after Justice Sharma’s withdrawal. While a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja had issued notice in the contempt petition, Justice Manoj Jain had asked CBI to inform Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak about the appeal being allocated to his bench.