The Enforcement Directorate on Friday summoned Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to appear on 3 Jan for an excise policy case.
This is the third summon for CM as he has skipped the earlier summons dated Nov 2 and Dec 21 and called it ‘illegal’.
Arvind Kejriwal was first summoned on Nov 2 but he skipped the questioning and alleged the notice was ‘vague, unsustainable in law’.
The ED issued its second summon on Dec 18 and asked Kejriwal to appear on Dec 21, but Kejriwal didn’t appear and left for a 10-day Vipassana meditation camp in Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
In a related matter, Kejriwal was previously interrogated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The two federal agencies are looking into the matter from two different perspectives in the Delhi liquor policy case.
What is the excise policy?
Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi began implementing the policy on November 17, 2021, based on a report of the expert committee. 849 liquor vending machines were given away to private companies through open bidding under the new regulation. There were 32 zones in the city, each with a maximum of 27 vends. Bidding was conducted zone-by-zone rather than for individual licenses.
With the implementation of the new policy, the local government officially left the liquor business. Its goals were to improve customer service, raise government revenue, and eliminate the influence and black marketing of the liquor mafia. Educational, social, and religious groups opposed this policy. In July 2022, the policy was reversed, and the previous liquor policy came into force.
The allegations were made on Kejriwal government’s excise policy 2021–22 of extending undue financial favors, which resulted in huge losses for the exchequer and further led to a controversy against AAP.
AAP leaders arrested by ED
Earlier, the top AAP leader Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh was arrested in a money laundering case while the former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was apprehended in a liquor policy case.
Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Singh have refuted all allegations and described the case as a “political vendetta” and “witch-hunt” on the command of the Union government.