Delhi High Court Calls AAP’s Kejriwal Petition in ‘Phansi Ghar’ Row Premature

New Delhi, December 20, 2025:

On Friday, submissions were made in a legal challenge in the case concerning the controversial issue of “Phansi Ghar” by the leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), such as former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. The counsel of the Delhi Legislative Assembly during the proceedings told the court that the petition challenging the summons given by the Privileges Committee of the Assembly was untimely and could not be heard in this case.

The counsel of the Assembly and its senior advocate, Jayant Mehta, approached a Bench consisting of Justice Sachin Datta and submitted that the Privileges Committee was yet to complete its investigations and reach a formal verdict of violation of privilege or contempt of the AAP leaders. He mentioned that the committee was in its fact-finding stage on whether or not the so-called “Phansi Ghar” existed within the Assembly premises and what it was.

“The writ petition is completely premature,” Mehta filed, since no charges of violation of the privilege, or contempt of the House, had been brought against the petitioners yet. He pointed out that the panel was simply looking at factual questions and had not yet come to any conclusion that would provide sufficient grounds to have a judicial intervention.

Background of the Controversy

This dispute is based on the arguments by the former AAP government that one of the chambers in the complex of the Delhi Assembly had a long history of being utilized as a gallows (”Phansi Ghar”) during the British colonial rule. The site was updated and opened in 2022 with a memorial of freedom fighters, including Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev, and a symbolic noose.

But now with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) taking over the control of the Delhi Assembly earlier this year, the historical claim is disputed by Speaker Vijender Gupta. As official building records, he insisted that the chamber was a service shaft or “tiffin lift” area and was not a gallows. The rest of the space was then called the “Tiffin Room” and removed the elements of the memorial.

The Privileges Committee of the Assembly responded by launching an investigation into the case and summoned some of the key AAP leaders, such as Kejriwal, Sisodia, former Speaker Ram Niwas Goel, and a legislator, Rakhi Birla, to appear before the panel to facilitate the process of fact-finding.

Legal Challenge and Arguments

The leaders of the AAP petitioned against the validity of the summons in the High Court. They claimed that the notices were made without observing due process, and the Privileges Committee was going beyond its mandate by investigating an issue that concerns the activities of the old Assembly. They also argued that the committee was in effect being requested to establish the authenticity of a historical assertion, which they argued was not within the scope of a privileges inquiry.

The Assembly counsel argued in its turn that since the committee was still investigating facts and, as yet, had no finding, which would amount to contempt or violation of privilege, there was no appropriate reason that the court should interfere at this stage. Mr. Mehta further indicated that the failure of the leaders to appear before the committee was obstructing its fact-finding exercise, and this in itself may be contempt of the House.

Next Hearing and Court Listing

The High Court has taken the issue to be heard once again on January 8, 2026, where rejoinder arguments will be heard by the counsel who will stand on behalf of the AAP leaders.

Political Reactions

The case has also garnered much political interest, with those who refer to the AAP itself suggesting that the summons and the ensuing inquiry are politically orchestrated, whereas those who criticize the party insist that the party is obliged to answer to spreading what they term historically inaccurate accounts. According to observers, the legal battle can have more extensive implications on the legislative privilege and jurisdiction as concerns Assembly proceedings.