Chandigarh, October 28
Senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader and former minister Bikram Singh Majithia on Tuesday accused former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal of misleading Punjabis by giving the disproportionate assets (DA) case the label of a drug case to suppress the issue of Punjab being pushed into turmoil. Majithia alleged that Kejriwal, whom he called a “bluff master”, was attempting to divert public attention from the situation in Punjab by presenting the case against him as a drug trafficking case. He said the legal proceedings had raised serious questions about the claims being made by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government led by Bhagwant Mann.
Majithia recalled that Kejriwal had apologised in 2018 for making false allegations against him in connection with drugs. He alleged that the AAP leadership was now once again trying to link his name to the drug case for political gains. He claimed that the Supreme Court had given the government time until March 18, 2025, to establish the allegations against him, but the Kejriwal and Bhagwant Mann governments had failed to do so.
“My lawyer has presented all the facts before the court and separated truth from falsehood,” Majithia said, adding that his lawyer, DS Sobti, had clarified that no direct or indirect connection between him and the drug case had been established. Majithia alleged that the government had failed to establish any link between him and the alleged drug money of Rs 736 crore. He also claimed that no concrete evidence had been produced to establish that he had transported anyone in vehicles or had any other connection with drug trafficking. He said the government had constituted four special investigation teams (SITs) to establish the allegations against him but had failed to prove anything.
Majithia further alleged that the government was relying on figures and allegations rather than concrete evidence in the disproportionate assets case. He claimed that the AAP government was making different statements inside and outside the court, adding that the difference between the facts presented by the government’s lawyer and its public statements had raised serious questions about the entire matter.
