Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 25: Breaking his silence over the claims by the Union Home Minister Amit Shah and other BJP leaders about the need for bringing Constitution amendment bill to force a prime minister, chief ministers and other ministers to resign if arrested for more than 30 days, the former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday posed a counter question as to what should be the punishment for a person levelling false charges against a minister.
Hours after Mr Shah defended the proposed law naming Mr Kejirwal’s refusal to resign when he was arrested in connection with the alleged liquor scam in Delhi, the former chief minister and the Aam Aadmi Party supremo hit back, questioning if those who frame others in false cases and are acquitted later would also face the same action.
Taking a swipe at the BJP accepting rival parties’ turncoats, many of them facing serious corruption charges, Mr Kejriwal said on X, “The person who accepts leaders accused of serious crimes, clears the cases against them and names them minister, Deputy Chief Minister or Chief Minister, should such a Prime Minister or minister resign?” “If someone is jailed in a false case and is later acquitted, how many years in jail should a minister face for levelling false allegations?” he asked.
The bill to amend the constitution introduced in the just-concluded monsoon session of Parliament sought to ensure that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and Ministers, if jailed for more than 30 days for offences that attract a jail term of over five years, can be removed from office if he or she did not resign voluntarily. In the face of strong objections from the opposition, the bill has since been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for further scrutiny.
Defending the bill which was introduced by him, Mr Shah had lashed out at the Opposition for calling the Bill “unconstitutional” or referring to it as “Black Bill.” He and later other BJP leaders had cited Mr Kejriwal’s arrest in the alleged excise policy scam and a money laundering case linked to the scam, Mr Shah pointed out that he had received bail within 30 days. “He got the bail (within 30 days), and I believe he should have given his resignation at that time. He even handed in his resignation when people opposed him. Now, he will have to give his resignation lawfully,” he said.
“When the case went to the High Court, it was argued that Arvind Kejriwal should resign because he is in jail. The High Court said we believe that he should resign on moral grounds, but there is no provision in the current law.” Mr Shah said. He had also questioned if a Prime Minister, a Chief Minister, or a minister should be allowed to work if he was jailed in a serious case. He had also clarified that the draft law did not apply to ministers accused of minor offences. “But those who face corruption or are accused in cases that attract more than five five-year jail term, is it right if they run the government from jail?” he asked.
Mr Shah and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained that no leader was so indispensable that no one else could run a government. “I want to ask the entire nation and the Opposition. Can a Chief Minister, Prime Minister, or any leader run the country from jail? Does that suit the dignity of our democracy? My party and I completely reject the idea that this country cannot be governed without the person who is sitting there. This will not affect anyone’s majority in the Parliament or the Assembly. One member will go, other members of the party will run the government, and when they get bail, they can come and take the oath again. What is the objection in this?” he said.
The proposed law states that any minister, Chief Minister, or the Prime Minister, who is arrested and is in custody for over 30 days after being accused of an offence punishable by a jail term of five years or more, shall be removed from office. Opposition parties have been alleging the misuse of central probe agencies, and said this new piece of legislation would only take India closer to a “police state.”
Mr Kejriwal was arrested in March last year by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in an excise policy-linked money laundering case, making him the first sitting Chief Minister to be arrested. The AAP had then made it clear that he would retain the top post, and his colleagues in the cabinet ran the government on his behalf. Only after he was granted bail in September did he step down and said he would return to the post after the verdict of the “people’s court”, meaning the Assembly election. AAP lost the Delhi election earlier this year.
In another post, Mr Kejriwal said, “When the Centre, under a political conspiracy, falsely implicated me in a case and sent me to jail, I ran the government from jail for 160 days.” He said that in the past seven months, the BJP Government in Delhi has brought the city to such a state that the people of Delhi are now remembering the government that functioned from jail.
“At least during the time of the jail-run government, there were no power cuts, water was available, free medicines were provided in hospitals and mohalla clinics, free tests were conducted, a single spell of rain didn’t wreak such havoc in Delhi, and private schools were not allowed to act arbitrarily or engage in hooliganism,” he said.
Taking a dig at the BJP, Mr Kejriwal wondered how many years should a person be imprisoned for including “criminals” in their parties and later making them Chief Minister and Prime Minister. “Should a person who includes criminals of serious crimes in his party, gets all their cases dismissed, and makes them Ministers, Deputy Chief Ministers, or Chief Ministers, also be required to resign from his position? How many years of imprisonment should such a person face?” Mr Kejriwal asked.