Reacting to accusations leveled by the Opposition regarding the alleged misuse of government agencies to target Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh dismissed the claims and questioned why relief wasn’t granted to Kejriwal by the courts.
In an interview with ANI, Singh accused the Opposition of misleading the public and refuted suggestions that the BJP had control over the judiciary. “Even if it is assumed that Arvind Kejriwal went to jail because of us, why is he not getting relief? Have we taken control of the courts also?” Singh queried, challenging the assertions made by the Opposition.
Singh emphasized that agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, and Income Tax department were merely performing their duties. He suggested that if the Opposition believed their leaders were being unjustly targeted, they could seek protection from the courts.
Pointing to recent developments, Singh highlighted the case of AAP leader Sanjay Singh, who secured bail in a money laundering case linked to the liquor policy scam. However, he questioned why other leaders, like Manish Sisodia, were still detained over similar charges.
The Defence Minister addressed concerns over Arvind Kejriwal’s recent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in the liquor policy case, noting that the Delhi High Court had upheld the action. Kejriwal has since appealed to the Supreme Court against the verdict and his arrest.
Responding to allegations by the Congress party about a “washing machine” within the BJP that purportedly cleanses leaders of other parties upon joining, Singh vehemently denied such claims. He stated that there was no such mechanism within the BJP and clarified that the government did not direct agencies to target specific individuals.
Dismissing the allegations as baseless, Singh asserted that the government remained committed to transparency and would not tolerate corruption. He accused the Opposition of attempting to divert attention from their own shortcomings and vowed that agencies would continue to operate independently without bias.
Comments