Introduction: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal is set to skip the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) summons for the fourth time in the excise policy case, a move that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) alleges is part of a larger plan to arrest him. The central agency issued its fourth summons last week, urging Mr. Kejriwal to appear today. However, the AAP leader has responded, stating his inability to comply due to prior commitments, including a visit to Goa for reviewing Lok Sabha poll preparations.
Kejriwal’s Response and Allegations: Denouncing the summons as “illegal and invalid,” Kejriwal contends that such notices from the ED are often nullified by the court, deeming them political vendettas. Expressing concern over the timing, he questions why he is called just two months before the Lok Sabha elections. He accuses the BJP of orchestrating these actions to prevent him from actively campaigning.
AAP’s Criticism of BJP: The AAP joins the criticism, asserting that the ED has confirmed Kejriwal is not an accused, raising questions about the repeated summons. The party alleges a pattern where corrupt leaders joining the BJP have their cases closed, contrasting it with their stance of having no corruption charges. The party remains defiant, stating that none of their leaders will align with the BJP.
Kejriwal’s Future Course: In response to the fresh summons, Kejriwal asserts that he will adhere to the law’s requirements. The ongoing saga traces back to November 2, when he was first summoned, followed by subsequent notices. Despite the ED’s claims of legality, Kejriwal continues to question the intent behind these actions.
ED’s Charges and Goa Election Link: The ED’s charge sheets in the excise policy case have mentioned Kejriwal, alleging communication between the accused and him during the policy’s preparation. The agency also contends that AAP utilized “proceeds of crime” in its Goa election campaign. The excise policy in Delhi was annulled amid corruption allegations, leading to a CBI takeover and subsequent ED involvement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Conclusion: As Kejriwal navigates through the legal complexities, the repeated summons and the ensuing allegations underscore the strained relationship between the AAP and the BJP. The political tussle intensifies, raising questions about the impartiality of such investigations in the charged political climate.