'Will quit politics if BJP...' Arvind Kejriwal dares PM Modi to hold elections in Delhi

Arvind Kejriwal

• Court acquits Kejriwal, Sisodia in liquor policy case
• Kejriwal challenges BJP to win over 10 seats in Delhi polls
• Judge cites lack of concrete evidence in the investigation

Did our AI summary help?

Hours after Former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's acquittal in the Liquor Policy case, he dared Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP to hold elections in Delhi and see what happens.

"I will quit politics if the BJP wins more than 10 seats," Kejriwal said during a press conference.

On Friday, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court dismissed all charges against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and several others in the excise policy case.

The AAP chief said the court's verdict is testimony to his clean image, and the case was politically motivated to destroy the party.

Saying that Delhi has suffered since the BJP returned to power last February, Kejriwal said, "The entire Delhi has been ruined. The biggest consequence of PM Modi and Amit Shah's lust for power has been borne by the three crore people of Delhi. Go and ask the people of Delhi. Today, I challenge Modi ji. If you have the courage, hold elections in Delhi again. If you get more than ten seats, I will quit politics. The people of Delhi are fed up with you people".

He also challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to stop him now. "Only way to stop Arvind Kejriwal now is to kill him," remarked the AAP chief, presenting a direct challenge to the Prime Minister.

"Two people, PM Modi and Amit Shah, hatched this conspiracy to finish the Aam Aadmi Party. Today, they should apologise to the country....I have only earned honesty, not money..." remarked the AAP convenor.

Earlier today, while pronouncing the order, Judge Singh reportedly observed that the investigation appeared to be built more on conjecture and narrative than on concrete evidence. He raised serious concerns about the reliance on statements of an approver who was previously an accused, cautioning that such dependence could violate constitutional principles.