Congress Tuesday asked Arvind Kejriwal to “walk the talk” on the issue of corruption after it emerged that Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti was indicted by a court for “tampering of evidence” in a case in which he had appeared as a lawyer. “Time for Mr Kejriwal to walk the talk. Delhi’s Law Minister was indicted by a court for illegally helping an accused of corruption,” AICC general secretary in-charge for Delhi Shakeel Ahmed said on the Twitter, attacking the Aam Aadmi Party leader. Union Minister Manish Tewari said that the nation was waiting to see if Aam Aadmi Party really meant what it said.
“I think AAP… has attempted to at least verbally set very high standards of public morality and discourse. I think the whole nation is waiting and watching whether they now walk the talk,” Tewari said. Arvinder Singh Lovely, chief of Delhi unit of Congress which gives outside support to AAP government, said law protector has become a law breaker. A party that came to power on the basis of morality should question its own conscience. “Are you such a big man that when there is a sting operation against you, then it is incorrect. If a court gives any verdict, then you raise question over that verdict. What you do is right and what others do is wrong?
“They should ask their conscience if they have one, what they are doing is just or not…. Today the people of Delhi want to know whether is this ethical,” said Lovely. However, Bharti and Chief Minister Kejriwal put up a stout defence saying the court was “wrong” in the matter. BJP demanded Bharti’s his resignation in the wake of reports on a ruling by Special CBI judge Poonam Bamba in a case in August, 2013′ The judge had said that the conduct of Pawan Kumar and his advocate Bharti “is not only highly objectionable and unethical but also amounts to tampering with evidence”.
The CBI Judge had made these observations while cancelling the bail granted earlier to Bharti’s client, facing trial in a graft case relating to bank fraud. The court had taken strong exception to the fact that Bharti and his client had telephonically contacted one of the prosecution witnesses to extract his opinion on the matter.