Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has decided to skip the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons, labeling them as “illegal” and “politically motivated,” and will instead be present at a roadshow in Madhya Pradesh. This move was confirmed by AAP sources and reported by news agencies ANI and PTI. Kejriwal’s response to the ED was articulated in a strongly worded letter, in which he criticized the notice sent to him.
Also read- ED Custody Of AAP MP Sanjay Singh Extended In Delhi Excise Policy Case (lawchakra.in)
The ED had summoned Kejriwal to appear at its headquarters on November 2 at 11 am. However, the Delhi Chief Minister has openly questioned the motives behind the summons. In his letter to the ED, Kejriwal stated,
“The said summons does not specify whether I am being summoned as an individual or in my official capacity as Chief Minister of Delhi or as National Convenor of AAP and appears to be in the nature of a fishing and roving inquiry.”
AAP’s reaction to the summons has been one of defiance, with Kejriwal himself not providing a direct statement on his attendance. Instead, the party has been vocal about their suspicions, with AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj claiming they had information that Kejriwal would be arrested. Bharadwaj stated,
“In case of Kejriwal’s arrest, the government and the party will run from jail.”
This development comes amid heightened scrutiny of the AAP by the ED, especially after the Supreme Court’s rejection of bail for AAP leader Manish Sisodia, citing a tentatively established money trail of Rs 338 crore. The case against AAP leaders has gained momentum, with the central government’s BJP being accused by AAP of manipulating the ED to serve political ends.
Also read- Supreme Court Rejects Manish Sisodia’s Bail Plea (lawchakra.in)
Kejriwal’s decision to engage in political activities in Madhya Pradesh rather than attend the ED summons is a clear indication of the escalating tensions between the AAP and the central government. As the situation unfolds, the narrative remains focused on the allegations of a politically motivated probe versus the imperative of upholding transparency and accountability in public office.
