NEW DELHI: The BJP on Sunday took fresh aim at the Aam Aadmi Party convenor and Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and his erstwhile deputy Manish Sisodia over the so-called Delhi liquor scam, alleging that the former was directly involved in it.
“Why did the court refuse to give relief to Manish Sisodia, accused no. 1 in the liquor scam case? Manish Sisodia and company have received a bribe of `100 crore and this has been verified through the court,” the party’s national spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla said while addressing a press conference. His remarks came two days after a court dismissed Sisodia’s bail plea, observing that prima facie, he was guilty of the allegations made against him.
“It is clear…that the applicant had played the most vital role in the criminal conspiracy and he had been deeply involved in the formulation as well as the implementation of the policy. Therefore, as per allegations made by the prosecution and the evidence collected in support thereof, the applicant can prima facie be held to be the architect of the alleged criminal conspiracy,” special judge M K Nagpal had said.
In a direct attack on Kejriwal, Poonawala alleged that the then deputy CM alone could not have executed the ‘scam’ on his own. The BJP spokesperson claimed that it was already decided what decisions each unit of the government, the GoM and the cabinet were going to take.
“This means that this whole scam was activated after discussing with the highest person in the government beforehand. Because the decision taken by the GoM and the cabinet cannot happen without the approval of the chief minister,” Poonawalla said. The BJP’s fresh attack comes a day after Kejriwal stepped up the attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi over his degree issue, poking fun at his alleged lack of literacy.
Incidentally, Sisodia now seems set to escalate the matter before the higher judiciary. After the dismissal of his bail plea, AAP’s Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh said, “We respect the judiciary and the courts, but the Constitution gives us the right to agree and disagree with the judgments of the judiciary, as well as the right to appeal against them,” he said.