Bansuri Swaraj urges Arvind Kejriwal to resign following the Delhi High Court’s decision

Bansuri Swaraj, a BJP leader, called for the resignation of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal following the dismissal of his petition by the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest. Swaraj also accused the Aam Aadmi Party of utilizing ₹100 crore in party activities. According to Swaraj, the Delhi High Court’s ruling indicates that Arvind Kejriwal […]

by Nisha Srivastava - April 10, 2024, 3:06 pm

Bansuri Swaraj, a BJP leader, called for the resignation of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal following the dismissal of his petition by the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest. Swaraj also accused the Aam Aadmi Party of utilizing ₹100 crore in party activities.

According to Swaraj, the Delhi High Court’s ruling indicates that Arvind Kejriwal played a significant role in the liquor scam and should step down from his position on ethical grounds. She stated, “With today’s judgement, the Delhi High Court has made it clear that Arvind Kejriwal had a very important role in the liquor scam and being the chief of AAP he was involved in it.”

Regarding the alleged kickbacks worth ₹100 crore in the Excise policy case, Swaraj claimed that the funds were utilized by AAP for its party activities. She mentioned that the court scrutinized evidence provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), including Hawala transactions and statements by the approver.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s petition, asserting that his arrest by the ED in the Delhi excise policy case cannot be deemed “illegal.” Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma noted that the ED possessed sufficient evidence for the arrest and highlighted the impact of Kejriwal’s non-cooperation with the investigation on individuals in judicial custody.

In response, the Aam Aadmi Party expressed disagreement with the Delhi High Court’s order, labeling Kejriwal’s arrest as a “political conspiracy.” Kejriwal’s counsel, Advocate Rishikesh Kumar, stated that they do not agree with the high court’s decision and intend to challenge it in the Supreme Court. He emphasized the need to await the detailed order before proceeding with the challenge, aiming to do so at the earliest opportunity.