sanjay-singh-returns-to-rs-after-suspension-ends

AAP MP Sanjay Singh has been granted a significant relief as his suspension from Rajya Sabha has ended. Following this, Sanjay Singh, along with other Aam Aadmi Party MPs, held a protest in the Parliament premises.

 

They demonstrated against the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister and AAP National Convener Arvind Kejriwal, just before President Droupadi Murmu's address on Thursday.

 

The AAP MPs were seen holding placards that read, “Stop misusing ED and CBI” and “Dictatorship will not work.” The protest comes in the wake of recent legal actions against Kejriwal.

 

On Wednesday, the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi sent Kejriwal to three days of CBI remand in connection with the Excise policy case. Vacation Judge Amitabh Rawat, after considering submissions from both sides, decided to place Kejriwal under CBI remand until June 29, 2024.

 

During this remand period, the court permitted Kejriwal’s wife, Sunita Kejriwal, to meet him for 30 minutes and his lawyer to meet him daily for the same duration. Additionally, the court allowed him to have his prescribed medications during this time.

 

In the hearing, Arvind Kejriwal addressed the court himself, stating that the CBI's claim that he made a statement against his colleague Manish Sisodia was completely false.

 

He asserted, “Manish Sisodia is innocent, Aam Aadmi Party is innocent. I am also innocent. Statements are being made to tarnish our image in the media.” Kejriwal further accused the CBI of attempting to defame him and his party through media reports, alleging that the CBI was using unnamed sources to spread false information.

 

He explained, “CBI sources are tarnishing our image in the media. They plan to make headline news that Kejriwal has shifted all the blame to Manish Sisodia.” However, the court clarified, “I have read your statement… you have not said this.”

 

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed the bail order for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that was passed by the trial court. The High Court stated that the trial court should have at least recorded its satisfaction with the fulfilment of the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before passing the impugned order.