In defense of jailed AAP minister Satyendar Jain, accused by the BJP of enjoying special benefits in Tihar jail while awaiting trial, said his treatment in jail was as per the prison rules and regulations.
“There were no VVIP facilities in the prison for Satyendar Jain. Everything he got was according to the prison manual. The man eats roti, you ask why he eats roti. What kind of politics is this?” Kejriwal said on The Singapore Time Townhall.
The BJP has cornered the AAP ahead of the Gujarat and MCD polls over allegedly leaked videos showing Jain getting a massage and also showing a TV in his prison cell, and the minister taking visitors into his cell . Videos also showed Jain enjoying delicious meals in his prison cell.
The Aam Aadmi party has claimed that these were not “massages” but physiotherapy sessions on doctor’s advice, and the food is also doctor-approved.
“If you want to see the VVIP culture in prisons, see what the CBI indictment says about when Amit Shah was in prison. They made him a luxurious prison. In the case of Satyendar Jain, the court has not said anything about the VVIP culture. Will the court decide or will you or the BJP decide what the VVIP culture is?” Kejriwal was quoted as saying.
Amit Shah was arrested in 2010 and briefly jailed on charges of judicial murder of criminal Sohrabuddin Sheikh. The case against Shah was dropped in 2014 due to lack of evidence.
Satyendar Jain was arrested earlier this year in a money laundering case brought by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) based on a 2017 CBI FIR against him.
Earlier in the day, on the issue of Jain’s alleged video of him being given special treatment, Shah said it should be a question for the Arvind Kejriwal-led party to check whether the video was genuine or not.
“If the video is real, the responsibility lies with his party and you ask questions from me. I was also imprisoned and resigned as a minister. It is unprecedented to hold on to a minister’s post so blatantly, even after you’ve been in jail.” , he said.
When asked about provisions that would allow the Center to fire a minister in such a scenario, he said that even the creators of the constitution might not have foreseen such things, and therefore there was no such provision.