Kejriwal Challenges Witness Credibility in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam: Alleges BJP Affiliation

Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s Chief Minister, has responded vehemently to allegations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam case. Kejriwal contests all accusations, alleging that the four principal witnesses are affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Kejriwal points out the involvement of BJP-associated figures like Magunta Srinivasan Reddy, a Lok Sabha candidate, and Sharath Chandra Reddy, who purportedly donated Rs 60 crore to the BJP amid the liquor scam investigation. He claims these individuals, initially arrested by the ED, later turned government witnesses. Kejriwal further alleges that Reddy purchased electoral bonds after his arrest, subsequently encashed by the BJP.

Challenging his arrest basis, Kejriwal cites statements from Satya Vijay, a senior BJP leader from Goa, and the recovery of a Gujarati diary from a hawala agent, suggesting manipulation by the BJP. He contends there’s no evidence in the ED affidavit implicating him in the alleged scam.

In his 53-page rebuttal, Kejriwal refutes each ED allegation and questions its conduct, citing a 2023 Supreme Court decision emphasizing ED transparency and impartiality. He criticizes the ED’s actions as opaque and dictatorial, denying non-cooperation and asserting he responded to all summons.

Recently, the ED responded to a petition challenging Kejriwal’s arrest, stating it occurred after the Delhi High Court denial of interim relief. The ED accuses Kejriwal of evading questioning, alleging he masterminded the excise scam with Delhi government ministers and AAP leaders.

The ED maintains the High Court concluded Kejriwal’s involvement in money laundering, opposing his petition and arguing AAP benefited from the alleged crime. According to the ED, Kejriwal’s control over AAP’s activities and his role as a founding member further implicate him.

Kejriwal alleges the ED’s sole aim was to obtain statements against him, ceasing further actions once achieved. He points to the ED’s malicious intent in concealing statements from co-accused individuals and refutes allegations of evidence destruction, criticizing the agency’s arbitrary actions and lack of legal due process.