‘Dictator should be destroyed’: Sunita Kejriwal on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's CBI custody

NEW DELHI: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's wife Sunita Kejriwal on Thursday launched a scathing attack against the centre led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi following her husband's arrest by the CBI.
In a post on the social media platform X, she said, "Till now the prayer has always been that God should give wisdom to everyone. But now the prayer will be that the dictator should be destroyed."

In response to the arrest, AAP decided to boycott the President's address to both houses of Parliament, accusing the government of conspiring against Kejriwal.AAP MP Sanjay Singh stated, "We will definitely boycott the President's address because this is not the President's own statement; rather, she reads the government's statement. She reads the written speeches of the government. So that is why we will boycott the President's address."
On Wednesday, the Rouse Avenue Court of Delhi sent Kejriwal to three days of CBI remand in connection with the Excise policy case. During the remand period, the court allowed Kejriwal's wife to meet him for 30 minutes and his lawyer to meet him every day for 30 minutes. The court also permitted him to carry his prescribed medicines during this time.
In the courtroom, Kejriwal addressed the allegations against him. He stated, "CBI is claiming that I have made a statement against Manish Sisodia, which is completely false. Manish Sisodia is innocent, Aam Aadmi Party is innocent. I am also innocent. Statements are being given in the media to defame us.”
He further added, "They are tarnishing our image in the media by using unnamed sources. They plan to make it headline news that Kejriwal has shifted all the blame to Manish Sisodia."
However, the court responded to his claim by stating, "I have read your statement... you have not said this."
On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court stayed Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail order, which had been passed by the trial court. The High Court criticized the trial court for failing to record its satisfaction with the fulfillment of the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before issuing the order.