What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The Delhi High Court on Saturday, June 15, issued a notice to Sunita Kejriwal, wife of CM Arvind Kejriwal, and social media platforms
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Saturday, June 15, issued a notice to Sunita Kejriwal, wife of CM Arvind Kejriwal, and social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, ordering them to delete all posts and reposts of a video featuring the AAP leader addressing the court on March 28. The court also issued notices to five social media platforms, including X, Meta, and YouTube. The next hearing of this case is scheduled for July 9.
This video dates back to when CM Arvind Kejriwal was arrested in the liquor policy case and presented his defense before the Delhi High Court. The High Court reviewed a petition calling for action against the violation of video conferencing rules, which occurred while Mr. Kejriwal was in police custody following his arrest in the alleged liquor policy scam.
The petition argued that Mrs. Kejriwal, along with the social media handles of the AAP and some opposition parties, had copied and posted the video of court proceedings online. The video in question features Mr. Kejriwal delivering an impassioned speech in which he directly addressed the court and accused the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of attempting “to crush” his party. He emphasized that, as the AAP has repeatedly stated, no alleged bribes received by his party had been recovered.
ALSO READ: Yogi, Bhagwat key meeting today
“I was arrested, but no court has proved me guilty. The CBI filed 31,000 pages of chargesheets, and the ED filed 25,000 chargesheets. Even if you read them together, the question remains: why have I been arrested?” Mr. Kejriwal asked the court.”
CM Arvind Kejriwal also referred to the statements of approvers or accused individuals who became government witnesses, suggesting they had been coerced into accusing him. “The Enforcement Directorate had only one mission – to trap me,” he alleged. “Three statements were given by one witness, but the court only considered those that accused me. Why? This is not right.”
