On Monday, the Delhi High Court temporarily halted the issuance of a summons to Sunita Kejriwal, who is the wife of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. This legal case pertains to allegations of her violation of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which involves her enrollment on voter lists for two different constituencies.

Justice Amit Bansal issued an order stating that the stay on the trial court's order will be in effect until February 1, 2024, which is when the case will be heard next. The court also issued a notice, and during this interim period, the impugned order will not be enforced.

Metropolitan Magistrate Arjinder Kaur of the Tis Hazari Court issued summons to Sunita Kejriwal on August 29, 2023. This decision came as a result of a plea filed by Delhi Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Harish Khurana. In his complaint, Khurana alleged that in 2019, Sunita Kejriwal was registered as a voter on the electoral rolls of both Sahibabad (Ghaziabad constituency) and Chandni Chowk in Delhi. This registration was claimed to be in violation of Section 17 of the Representation of the People Act.

It was stated that Sunita Kejriwal could potentially be liable for offenses under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with making false declarations.

Sunita Kejriwal took the legal route to challenge the order that had issued the summons to her. In her defense, Senior Advocate Rebecca John represented her in the High Court. John argued that, according to the Representation of People Act, an offense is only established if a person submits a false declaration. She pointed out that Harish Khurana, the complainant, had not provided any evidence to support the claim that a false declaration had been made.

John further contended that the issuance of the summons was done without proper application of mind. She emphasized that this case was initiated as a private complaint, and it was the responsibility of the magistrate to verify with the election commission before issuing the summons.

During the legal proceedings, the counsel representing the State argued that the complaint should be barred by limitation. After taking into account the arguments made by both sides, the Court decided to stay the trial court order.