NEW DELHI: On Monday (Apr 1), an Indian court extended the detention of prominent opposition leader Arvind Kejriwal until April 15 in co...
NEW DELHI: On Monday (Apr 1), an Indian court extended the detention of prominent opposition leader Arvind Kejriwal until April 15 in connection with a corruption case, as confirmed by his legal representatives. This decision comes less than three weeks before the commencement of the general elections.
Last month, Kejriwal, who serves as the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by India's financial crime investigation agency on allegations of corruption related to the city's liquor policy. He had been previously remanded in custody until April 1, a move that triggered widespread protests.
Opposition parties have raised concerns, asserting that the arrest of Kejriwal and other opposition figures, coupled with government actions against them, indicates an unfair electoral environment. However, these allegations have been refuted by the government.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), led by Kejriwal, maintains that the charges against him are fabricated and politically motivated. In contrast, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has denied any political interference in the case.
According to reports from the website Live Law, lawyers representing the Enforcement Directorate, the investigating agency, informed the court on Monday that Kejriwal had been uncooperative and provided evasive responses during the investigation. They requested an additional 15 days of custody for further interrogation.
Reacting to the court's decision, Kejriwal's wife, Sunita, expressed her concerns to reporters, accusing Modi's government of attempting to incarcerate him during the crucial election period. She denounced the alleged authoritarianism, asserting that the public would respond to such tactics.
BJP spokesperson Sudhanshu Trivedi commented on the court's decision, stating that the extension of Kejriwal's detention, based on substantial evidence, raises both moral and constitutional questions that warrant consideration.
No comments