Dainik Nation News Portal
Rouse Avenue Court Delhi has extended the ED remand of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal till April 1 in the excise policy case. CM Kejriwal alleged that the ED is attempting to ensnare him without presenting any concrete evidence.
In a dramatic appearance at the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi, CM Arvind Kejriwal labeled his arrest as a “political conspiracy” and promised a strong response from the state he governs against the alleged conspirators. Kejriwal personally presented his arguments during the hearing related to the excise policy case, claiming that a false image of the AAP being “corrupt” has been propagated nationally.
Kejriwal stated before Special Judge Kaveri Baweja that the ED is driven by two objectives – first, to tarnish the AAP’s reputation and second, to orchestrate an extortion scheme. He mentioned a significant contribution of 55 crores to the BJP by Raghav Reddy, insinuating a quid pro quo for bail. Kejriwal questioned the basis of his arrest, emphasizing that despite extensive chargesheets from the CBI and ED, his guilt has not been proven.
“I have been mentioned just four times, and once it was ‘C Arvind’. Sisodia may have given me documents in his presence, but MLAs regularly visited my residence for official discussions. Is such flimsy evidence enough to arrest a sitting Chief Minister?” Kejriwal queried during the court proceedings.
In court, Kejriwal accused the Enforcement Directorate of having a singular mission to entrap him. He raised concerns about witness statements selectively implicating him while ignoring exculpatory evidence. His lawyer, Ramesh Gupta, highlighted instances where a witness was released after providing a statement incriminating Kejriwal, suggesting a questionable motive behind the arrests.
Kejriwal also addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking his removal as Chief Minister, which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The court declined to comment on the merits of the case, stating that such matters are outside the realm of judicial interference and should be dealt with by other branches of the government in accordance with the law.
The court further pressed the petitioner’s counsel to demonstrate a legal impediment to Kejriwal’s continuation as Chief Minister. “There might be practical difficulties, but that is a separate matter. Where is the legal barrier?” the court inquired.
