Arvind Kejriwal Arrest Amid Controversy:
“Arvind Kejriwal arrest after dodging nine Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons has intensified the controversy surrounding the Delhi liquor policy case, with the ED labeling him a ‘conspirator’.”
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), was arrested today by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to the liquor policy case. AAP leaders Atishi and Saurabh Bharadwaj had earlier expressed their concerns, speculating that Kejriwal could be arrested by the ED today.
Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh are accused of working together to create the now-defunct liquor policy case, according to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). According to the ED, the goal of this alleged conspiracy was to create a policy that would benefit the “South Lobby,” a liquor lobby with headquarters in southern India.
According to the ED’s findings, the “South Lobby” was allegedly supposed to give the AAP ₹100 crore in return for this policy favor. The name of Mr. Kejriwal surfaced in statements made by witnesses and accused persons, and it is mentioned in the agency’s chargesheets and remand note.
The investigation agency claimed that Vijay Nair, an accused in the liquor policy case, frequently visited and spent a lot of time in Mr. Kejriwal’s office. Nair allegedly told liquor dealers that he spoke with Mr. Kejriwal personally about the policy issues. Nair is said to have arranged a meeting between Mr. Kejriwal and Sameer Mahendru, the owner of Indospirit.
When Mr. Arvind went to Mr. Kejriwal’s house after getting the call from Mr. Sisodia, he was shocked to see Satyendar Jain there with the document. He found this discovery puzzling because at no previous group of ministers (GoM) meeting had such a plan been discussed.
Mr. Arvind asserted that he was told to create a GoM report using the information in this document, despite his misgivings. The complex labyrinth of decision-making procedures underlying the contentious liquor policy is illuminated by this purported directive, adding to the doubts over the openness and honesty of the AAP government’s policymaking machinery.
