New Delhi : Reacting to the court’s order sending Arvind Kejriwal to six-day ED custody, AAP leader Atishi Marlena said that they disagree with the decision, and added that the AAP supremo will remain the Delhi chief minister.
Speaking to a news agency, the Delhi education minister said that the party will take all the legal routes possible.
“Arvind Kejriwal is and will remain the chief minister of Delhi. There is no constitutional or legal bar on him not being the CM. He can step down only when he is convicted and serves jail sentence of two years.”
She further claimed that the witnesses in the case are being forced into giving false testimants against Kejriwal.
“We, very respectfully and humbly disagree with the decision of the court. ED has no proof even after 2 years of investigation… ED forced their witnesses to give statements against Arvind Kejriwal… We will explore all possible legal routes… One by one opposition parties are being targetted in front of the judiciary.”
Meanwhile, arrested Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s lawyer on Friday told a Delhi court that there was “no material” or “evidence” to show any wrongdoing in excise policy formulation or receipt of any proceeds by the AAP supremo, reports PTI news agency.
The 55-year-old Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday under the anti-money laundering law from his official residence in the Civil Lines area of Delhi. He was produced on Friday before the Rouse Avenue court, which sent him to the ED’s custody till March 28.
While opposing the ED’s demand for his custody, Kejriwal’s lawyer told the court “that the present case is stitched together only on the basis of statements of co-accused and statement of officers who are working under the control of the complainant herein i.e. LG of Delhi”.
“There is no material or evidence to show any wrongdoing in policy formulation or any receipt of any proceeds by the arrestee. That despite investigating the matter for over the year and despite conducting more than 200 raids, no incriminating material showing involvement of arrestee in any crime or involvement in any process/ activity was found,” he contended.
He said that to “unleash political vendetta” and for extraneous reasons, powers under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act (PMLA) are “misused in malicious manner and people are coerced, forced and pressurised to give unsubstantiated statements” in the case.
