NEW DELHI: With former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal sticking to his guns on “Haryana poisoned Yamuna waters” allegations and launching a scathing attack on the Election Commission, all options are open for the EC. This could include ordering a criminal FIR if it concludes that he has failed to back up his claims with facts and evidence by the Friday 11am deadline set by the poll panel.
The EC letter to Kejriwal on Thursday stated that his reply to its notice provided no “factual and legal matrix” with evidence to back his allegation that the BJP govt in Haryana deliberately poisoned the waters of Yamuna “with an intent to cause genocide of citizens of Delhi”. It put on record that the commission has prima facie found his allegations as “promoting disharmony and enmity between different groups, and overall public disorder and unrest, even by most sober interpretation”.
EC said the words used in his statement, the comparative emphasis laid on them and the manner of expression at a delicate time during peak campaigning “prima facie pose a risk of endangering peace and harmony between states and peoples.”
As Kejriwal refused to back off, his defiance raised the prospect of EC responding with measures, including the registration of an FIR, in its armoury for alleged violation of the model code of conduct.
The AAP convenor responded by going ballistic against the poll panel and Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar and said, “I want to tell Rajiv Kumarji, history will not forgive you. The amount of damage you have done to the EC, I don’t think it has ever been tarnished this badly in India’s history. I know that within two days, they will put me in jail. The kind of language the EC has used today is unprecedented. This is not the job of the EC.”
He went on to say that if Kumar wanted to engage in politics, he should contest an election. “Let him stand as a candidate from any assembly seat in Delhi,” he said.
The EC letter said Kejriwal, being a prominent public figure and former chief minister, should be aware of the dire consequences that such utterances can have and how they can leave permanent scars between residents of Haryana and Delhi. The poll panel also noted that in its notice on Tuesday, it had elaborated the legal and regulatory provisions attracted by his claims if not proved true.
EC’s assertions indicate that any dissatisfaction with Kejriwal’s reply to its five pointed queries – the kind of poison mixed by Haryana in Yamuna; supporting evidence of the quantity, nature and manner of detecting the poison; locations where the poison was detected; which DJB engineers detected it and how and where; and the methodology employed by those engineers to stop the poisonous water from entering Delhi – may lead the poll panel to consider directing Delhi Police to file an FIR invoking Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 196 (statements that promote enmity between groups), Section 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration) and Section 353 (public mischief), as also Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act (false statement equivalent to a corrupt practice).
All three BNS sections attract up to three years in prison, or fine, or both. Separately, EC may initiate action against Kejriwal for violating model code provisions that restrain parties and candidates from activities that create hatred and tension between groups.
The poll panel on Thursday told Kejriwal that his reply was “entirely silent” on his public and widely circulated campaign statement of ‘poisoning’ of Yamuna waters. “Instead of clarifying factual and legal matrix of your statement you have chosen to justify it under the question on high ammonia content in the river Yamuna in Delhi,” EC said as it reminded Kejriwal that the commission was dealing separately with the matter already raised by the chief ministers of Delhi and Punjab. It said Haryana govt’s inputs on the issue were also being considered. TOI had exclusively reported om Wedneday’s EC’s response to Kejriwal’s reply to its notice.
On Kejriwal’s request for EC’s intervention to ensure availability of sufficient and safe water, the commission said the matter was best left to the competence and discretion of the govts and the agencies concerned.