oppn parties Why Doesn't Kejriwal Join The Investigation If He Has Proof?

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
Why Doesn't Kejriwal Join The Investigation If He Has Proof?

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2024-02-05 06:28:55

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

Before AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal can accuse Delhi Police of 'drama', he has to explain to the public why he made wild allegations (in the absence of proof, they will remain so) about the BJP offering Rs 25cr to his MLAs to switch sides. Kejriwal has often raised the bogey of his MLAs being approached by the BJP ever since AAP formed the government in Delhi. But this time he has accused that money was offered and has also put forth a figure. As per the laws of the nation, offering cash or other inducements to people's representatives to switch sides is a cognizable offence. Hence, if someone accuses that MLAs are being paid money to switch allegiance and if the police receive a complaint in this regard, it is their duty to investigate the matter. In the instant case, the Delhi unit of the BJP has filed a complaint. So, Delhi Police was not in drama mode but conducting a serious investigation for bribery to MLAs.

Arvind Kejriwal, and for that matter no political leader, cannot be allowed to get away with making false and wild allegations against any other party. If, indeed, AAP MLAs were offered money, Kejriwal should join the investigation and present proof of that. If concrete proof is not available, he can at least inform the police which of his MLAs were approached and by whom. But that again will be hearsay as obviously Kejriwal was definitely not present when the alleged offer was made to his MLAs. What is to stop the MLAs from spreading false tales to increase their bargaining power in the party? Kejriwal has ignored five summons from the ED in the Delhi liquor excise case. Now he will most likely ignore the Delhi police summons in the MLA bribery case too. Each time he takes the stand that these investigations are politically motivated. But if he has nothing to hide in the first case and has proof in the second, what is stopping him from joining the investigation and clearing the matter?