Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

“Mr. Kejriwal, don’t question my order…” — Delhi High Court Judge issues a sharp warning ⚖️ A dramatic moment unfolded inside the courtroom as former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal found himself at the receiving end of a stern remark from single judge bench Justice Swarnakanta Sharma. During the...

LawChakra's profile picture

LawChakra

10,941 subscribers

21,572 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Kejriwal today in Delhi High court argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent court orders. In a charged courtroom moment,he raised concerns over the perceived neutrality of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, pointing to her attendance at events organized by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. Highlighting that the judge had reportedly participated in multiple events hosted by the organization, he argued that the ideology associated with the group is one they strongly oppose, and openly so. Framing the matter as more than just a legal dispute, the kejriwal asserted that “this case is political”, raising broader questions about judicial perception, ideological affiliations, and fairness in politically sensitive cases.T The remarks have sparked debate over where to draw the line between a judge’s public engagements and the expectation of impartiality—especially when cases carry significant political undertones. Arvind Kejriwal AAP Manish Sisodia #Judiciary #JudicialIndependence #CourtroomDrama #IndiaNews #LegalDebate
8:06

Kejriwal today in Delhi High court argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent court orders. In a charged courtroom moment,he raised concerns over the perceived neutrality of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, pointing to her attendance at events organized by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad. Highlighting that the judge had reportedly participated in multiple events hosted by the organization, he argued that the ideology associated with the group is one they strongly oppose, and openly so. Framing the matter as more than just a legal dispute, the kejriwal asserted that “this case is political”, raising broader questions about judicial perception, ideological affiliations, and fairness in politically sensitive cases.T The remarks have sparked debate over where to draw the line between a judge’s public engagements and the expectation of impartiality—especially when cases carry significant political undertones. Arvind Kejriwal AAP Manish Sisodia #Judiciary #JudicialIndependence #CourtroomDrama #IndiaNews #LegalDebate

LawChakra

42,291 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Just days after the Central Bureau of Investigation defended Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi High Court, a shocking twist has turned the narrative upside down. A viral expose by Saurav Das has raised serious questions about potential conflict of interest, bringing the debate out of the courtroom and into public scrutiny. With recusal demands by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia already denied, the spotlight is now on judicial impartiality and institutional credibility. Allegations of unusual judicial conduct and controversial government-linked appointments have intensified concerns around fairness in this high-stakes case. As the hearing approaches, the real question remains — will justice just be done, or will it also be seen to be done? Saurav Das Arvind Kejriwal Manish Sisodia AAP #Delhihighcourt #legalnews #latestnews #judiciary #delhiexcisecase
7:36

Just days after the Central Bureau of Investigation defended Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the Delhi High Court, a shocking twist has turned the narrative upside down. A viral expose by Saurav Das has raised serious questions about potential conflict of interest, bringing the debate out of the courtroom and into public scrutiny. With recusal demands by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia already denied, the spotlight is now on judicial impartiality and institutional credibility. Allegations of unusual judicial conduct and controversial government-linked appointments have intensified concerns around fairness in this high-stakes case. As the hearing approaches, the real question remains — will justice just be done, or will it also be seen to be done? Saurav Das Arvind Kejriwal Manish Sisodia AAP #Delhihighcourt #legalnews #latestnews #judiciary #delhiexcisecase

LawChakra

112,419 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

The controversy just got deeper. What began as a courtroom clash has now turned into a sensitive debate on judicial propriety. Arvind Kejriwal has, in a fresh affidavit before the Delhi High Court, raised concerns over a possible “appearance of conflict of interest” involving Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s family and the role of Tushar Mehta. The claim? That the same legal ecosystem representing the prosecuting side is also connected to how work is allocated to the judge’s immediate family members. Importantly, Kejriwal stops short of alleging actual bias—but argues that even the perception of it could impact fairness. He has also flagged a procedural concern, stating he was denied a fair opportunity to present his rejoinder arguments. So, is this merely a question of perception, or a serious test for judicial transparency and ethics? As the legal battle intensifies, all eyes are now on how the court responds. AAP Arvind Kejriwal Manish Sisodia #legalnews #latestnews #judiciary #delhihighcourt
0:53

The controversy just got deeper. What began as a courtroom clash has now turned into a sensitive debate on judicial propriety. Arvind Kejriwal has, in a fresh affidavit before the Delhi High Court, raised concerns over a possible “appearance of conflict of interest” involving Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma’s family and the role of Tushar Mehta. The claim? That the same legal ecosystem representing the prosecuting side is also connected to how work is allocated to the judge’s immediate family members. Importantly, Kejriwal stops short of alleging actual bias—but argues that even the perception of it could impact fairness. He has also flagged a procedural concern, stating he was denied a fair opportunity to present his rejoinder arguments. So, is this merely a question of perception, or a serious test for judicial transparency and ethics? As the legal battle intensifies, all eyes are now on how the court responds. AAP Arvind Kejriwal Manish Sisodia #legalnews #latestnews #judiciary #delhihighcourt

LawChakra

223,010 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has consistently ruled in favour of ED and CBI, raising serious doubts about a fair hearing. He argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent court orders. Arvind Kejriwal #arvindkejriwal #legalnews #latestnews #delhihighcourt
1:28

Kejriwal told the Delhi High Court that Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has consistently ruled in favour of ED and CBI, raising serious doubts about a fair hearing. He argued that even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal, citing past judgments and recent court orders. Arvind Kejriwal #arvindkejriwal #legalnews #latestnews #delhihighcourt

LawChakra

29,216 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Did the court apply the wrong legal standard in the Kejriwal case? The refusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse has sparked a sharp legal debate. While the court held that there was no concrete proof of bias, prominent voices like Prashant Bhushan and Karuna Nundy argue that the law doesn’t require proving actual bias—only a reasonable apprehension of it. So, was the correct legal test applied, or does this raise deeper questions about judicial fairness? Arvind Kejriwal AAP Manish Sisodia #delhihighcourt #legalnews #latestnews
0:50

Did the court apply the wrong legal standard in the Kejriwal case? The refusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to recuse has sparked a sharp legal debate. While the court held that there was no concrete proof of bias, prominent voices like Prashant Bhushan and Karuna Nundy argue that the law doesn’t require proving actual bias—only a reasonable apprehension of it. So, was the correct legal test applied, or does this raise deeper questions about judicial fairness? Arvind Kejriwal AAP Manish Sisodia #delhihighcourt #legalnews #latestnews

LawChakra

28,458 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

VIDEO | As the Rouse Avenue Court discharges former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia in the excise policy case, social activist Anna Hazare says, “Our country runs on the strength of its judicial and security systems. Despite being such a large nation with diverse parties, castes, religions, and communities, it functions smoothly because of the judiciary. Without it, there would be chaos and unrest. Now that the court has given its verdict stating that Arvind Kejriwal is not at fault, it must be accepted...” #ArvindKejriwal (Full video available on PTI Videos -
4:33

VIDEO | As the Rouse Avenue Court discharges former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia in the excise policy case, social activist Anna Hazare says, “Our country runs on the strength of its judicial and security systems. Despite being such a large nation with diverse parties, castes, religions, and communities, it functions smoothly because of the judiciary. Without it, there would be chaos and unrest. Now that the court has given its verdict stating that Arvind Kejriwal is not at fault, it must be accepted...” #ArvindKejriwal (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

147,392 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

A fiery courtroom moment unfolded in the Supreme Court of India as Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clashed during a heated exchange — with Singhvi snapping, “Mr. Mehta, don’t interrupt me!” ⚖️🔥 But beyond the drama, the legal stakes were serious. The Supreme Court refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail earlier granted to Congress leader Pawan Khera by the Telangana High Court in a case filed by Assam Police. The case involves allegations of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar made its position clear: 👉 “You go and file a petition in Assam. The court will take up.” This means no immediate relief from the Supreme Court — and Khera must now approach the competent court in Assam for further protection. 💥 Was this just a procedural decision… or a major setback? 💥 Is this about legal discipline or political implications? Watch the full breakdown as we decode the arguments, the courtroom tension, and what this means going forward.Abhishek Singhvi #SupremeCourt #PawanKhera #AbhishekManuSinghvi #TusharMehta #LegalNews #CourtroomDrama #IndianLaw #LawChakra
8:18

A fiery courtroom moment unfolded in the Supreme Court of India as Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clashed during a heated exchange — with Singhvi snapping, “Mr. Mehta, don’t interrupt me!” ⚖️🔥 But beyond the drama, the legal stakes were serious. The Supreme Court refused to extend the transit anticipatory bail earlier granted to Congress leader Pawan Khera by the Telangana High Court in a case filed by Assam Police. The case involves allegations of defamation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar made its position clear: 👉 “You go and file a petition in Assam. The court will take up.” This means no immediate relief from the Supreme Court — and Khera must now approach the competent court in Assam for further protection. 💥 Was this just a procedural decision… or a major setback? 💥 Is this about legal discipline or political implications? Watch the full breakdown as we decode the arguments, the courtroom tension, and what this means going forward.Abhishek Singhvi #SupremeCourt #PawanKhera #AbhishekManuSinghvi #TusharMehta #LegalNews #CourtroomDrama #IndianLaw #LawChakra

LawChakra

66,637 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case, Former Uttarakhand High Court Judge, Justice Lok Pal Singh says, "It is unfortunate on his part. He made false allegations against the judge... He should not move such letters... Once his application has been discussed, he should have availed the legal remedy in the court... It will become a trend to make allegations against a particular judge, run away from the court and delay the hearing of the case."
1:36

#WATCH | Delhi: On AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case, Former Uttarakhand High Court Judge, Justice Lok Pal Singh says, "It is unfortunate on his part. He made false allegations against the judge... He should not move such letters... Once his application has been discussed, he should have availed the legal remedy in the court... It will become a trend to make allegations against a particular judge, run away from the court and delay the hearing of the case."

ANI

28,656 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

VIDEO | Delhi: On a letter sent to the CJI against the former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal over contempt of court, Advocate Dr. Monika Sharma says, “See, we wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India stating the following. We stated that a very unfortunate incident has happened. Now, what is the incident? The incident is that a person who got discharged from the CBI court, good for him, when the CBI challenged the case in the High Court and certain interim directions were passed by the High Court, he said, ‘No, no, no, I don’t like those interim directions.’ So he neither appealed against that order nor filed a review or revision, but he said, ‘Change the judge, change the bench, change the court.’ And he came out openly in public about it. It was all over the media that he was saying that this judge should not hear my case and some other judge should hear my case. Now, litigants cannot decide which judge will hear their case. It is the Chief Justice of the respective High Court who decides the roster, which judge will hear civil matters and which judge will hear criminal matters. Now here he says, ‘No, no, you change the judge.’ So the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court says, ‘No, there is no reason to change the judge. We are not changing the judge.’ He goes to the Supreme Court and files a petition saying, ‘Change the judge.’ Now you see, this is a very, very dangerous trend, not only for the judicial system but for our democracy. Now here, if you don’t like the order, you’re not challenging the order, you’re challenging the judge. And that too, you’re publicly humiliating and embarrassing the judge, that is wrong. So the number of people who have signed this letter, they are former and present vice-chancellors, IPS officers, lawyers, senior advocates, bar members, the High Court Bar Association’s former president, secretary, everybody has signed this letter saying this is a wrong precedent. It undermines the status, it undermines the dignity of the judiciary. Judicial officers should be allowed to work without any political pressure, without any pressure tactics. This amounts to forum shopping and bench hunting. This should be discouraged, and this is criminal contempt of court because you are attributing motives to the judge. So we have requested the Chief Justice of India to suo motu initiate criminal contempt proceedings against this person."
2:34

VIDEO | Delhi: On a letter sent to the CJI against the former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal over contempt of court, Advocate Dr. Monika Sharma says, “See, we wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India stating the following. We stated that a very unfortunate incident has happened. Now, what is the incident? The incident is that a person who got discharged from the CBI court, good for him, when the CBI challenged the case in the High Court and certain interim directions were passed by the High Court, he said, ‘No, no, no, I don’t like those interim directions.’ So he neither appealed against that order nor filed a review or revision, but he said, ‘Change the judge, change the bench, change the court.’ And he came out openly in public about it. It was all over the media that he was saying that this judge should not hear my case and some other judge should hear my case. Now, litigants cannot decide which judge will hear their case. It is the Chief Justice of the respective High Court who decides the roster, which judge will hear civil matters and which judge will hear criminal matters. Now here he says, ‘No, no, you change the judge.’ So the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court says, ‘No, there is no reason to change the judge. We are not changing the judge.’ He goes to the Supreme Court and files a petition saying, ‘Change the judge.’ Now you see, this is a very, very dangerous trend, not only for the judicial system but for our democracy. Now here, if you don’t like the order, you’re not challenging the order, you’re challenging the judge. And that too, you’re publicly humiliating and embarrassing the judge, that is wrong. So the number of people who have signed this letter, they are former and present vice-chancellors, IPS officers, lawyers, senior advocates, bar members, the High Court Bar Association’s former president, secretary, everybody has signed this letter saying this is a wrong precedent. It undermines the status, it undermines the dignity of the judiciary. Judicial officers should be allowed to work without any political pressure, without any pressure tactics. This amounts to forum shopping and bench hunting. This should be discouraged, and this is criminal contempt of court because you are attributing motives to the judge. So we have requested the Chief Justice of India to suo motu initiate criminal contempt proceedings against this person."

Press Trust of India

99,583 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi | On AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case, Advocate Monika Arora says, “When an order is passed against a person, he files an appeal and goes to the higher court… But Arvind Kejriwal is different, he does not file an appeal but appears for a Press Conference… He boycotts the court… He wants a judge of his choice, which is not how things work. As per India’s criminal justice system, you cannot have the judge of your choice… Mahatma Gandhi did Satyagraha against the Britishers, but Arvind Kejriwal wants to do Satyagraha against the Constitutional courts… This country won’t run as per the whims of Kejriwal ji but as per the constitution.”
2:17

#WATCH | Delhi | On AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s letter to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and refusing to appear in person or through a lawyer for the hearing in the Delhi excise policy case, Advocate Monika Arora says, “When an order is passed against a person, he files an appeal and goes to the higher court… But Arvind Kejriwal is different, he does not file an appeal but appears for a Press Conference… He boycotts the court… He wants a judge of his choice, which is not how things work. As per India’s criminal justice system, you cannot have the judge of your choice… Mahatma Gandhi did Satyagraha against the Britishers, but Arvind Kejriwal wants to do Satyagraha against the Constitutional courts… This country won’t run as per the whims of Kejriwal ji but as per the constitution.”

ANI

435,906 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi | On Delhi HC dismissing Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in excise policy case, BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj says, "Arvind Kejriwal is a bully. You tried to pressurise a female member of the judiciary of this country. Rejecting his politics of creating pressure on the judiciary, Delhi HC dismissed his plea for transfer (of the case). It is now proven that AAP is a drama company and Arvind Kejriwal is the director of this company."
3:49

#WATCH | Delhi | On Delhi HC dismissing Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in excise policy case, BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj says, "Arvind Kejriwal is a bully. You tried to pressurise a female member of the judiciary of this country. Rejecting his politics of creating pressure on the judiciary, Delhi HC dismissed his plea for transfer (of the case). It is now proven that AAP is a drama company and Arvind Kejriwal is the director of this company."

ANI

44,372 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A judge can go on a vacation, a judiciary cannot. My views, on the catastrophe that is the India judicial system, where 53 million cases are pending even as the Supreme court remains shut for 160 days and 29% of High court and 19% of District court judicial positions lie vacant:
1:30

A judge can go on a vacation, a judiciary cannot. My views, on the catastrophe that is the India judicial system, where 53 million cases are pending even as the Supreme court remains shut for 160 days and 29% of High court and 19% of District court judicial positions lie vacant:

Anand Ranganathan

329,607 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

A courtroom battle that moved past legal arguments into a deeper clash of faith and constitutional authority. During the Sabarimala hearings, J Sai Deepak strongly challenged the scope of judicial review, asserting that courts should not evaluate essential religious practices merely because the State is involved. Opposing this stance, the Bench led by Surya Kant stood firm, emphasizing that judicial review remains a fundamental feature of the Constitution Sai Deepak J #supremecourtofindia #legalnews #latestnews #constitution #religion #sabarimala
10:02

A courtroom battle that moved past legal arguments into a deeper clash of faith and constitutional authority. During the Sabarimala hearings, J Sai Deepak strongly challenged the scope of judicial review, asserting that courts should not evaluate essential religious practices merely because the State is involved. Opposing this stance, the Bench led by Surya Kant stood firm, emphasizing that judicial review remains a fundamental feature of the Constitution Sai Deepak J #supremecourtofindia #legalnews #latestnews #constitution #religion #sabarimala

LawChakra

34,440 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

After the Gauhati High Court refused anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, the courtroom didn’t cool down—it turned into a high-stakes legal battleground. With Abhishek Manu Singhvi calling the case a “political vendetta” and Devajit Saikia countering with serious charges beyond defamation, the hearing went far beyond routine bail arguments. The Court made it clear: this isn’t just political rhetoric—it involves allegations of forgery, credibility gaps, and the need for custodial interrogation. Calling out the targeting of a private individual, the bench drew a sharp line between free speech and legal accountability. Bottom line: What began as a political allegation has now escalated into a full-fledged criminal case—with the court prioritizing evidence over narrative, and sending a strong signal that political speech isn’t immune from legal scrutiny. Abhishek Singhvi #Assamcm #legalnews #pawankhera #defamationcase #fakepassport
7:38

After the Gauhati High Court refused anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, the courtroom didn’t cool down—it turned into a high-stakes legal battleground. With Abhishek Manu Singhvi calling the case a “political vendetta” and Devajit Saikia countering with serious charges beyond defamation, the hearing went far beyond routine bail arguments. The Court made it clear: this isn’t just political rhetoric—it involves allegations of forgery, credibility gaps, and the need for custodial interrogation. Calling out the targeting of a private individual, the bench drew a sharp line between free speech and legal accountability. Bottom line: What began as a political allegation has now escalated into a full-fledged criminal case—with the court prioritizing evidence over narrative, and sending a strong signal that political speech isn’t immune from legal scrutiny. Abhishek Singhvi #Assamcm #legalnews #pawankhera #defamationcase #fakepassport

LawChakra

28,585 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Delhi High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to reply to Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. SG Tushar Mehta opposed the application, calling Kejriwal’s allegations baseless in the matter. #highcourt #Kejriwal #AAP
9:26

Delhi High Court asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to reply to Arvind Kejriwal’s plea seeking recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the excise policy case. SG Tushar Mehta opposed the application, calling Kejriwal’s allegations baseless in the matter. #highcourt #Kejriwal #AAP

LawChakra

55,879 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.
3:34

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.

KV Iyyer - BHARAT 🇮🇳🇮🇱

220,340 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Sushant Sinha is a bootlicker He pretends to be a journalist On 28 Feb 2023, he did a show on the liquor scam in Delhi On that show, he claimed that Manish Sisodia, Satyendra Jain, and Arvind Kejriwal were responsible for the scam Even CBI failed to prove these allegations, but he presented them as established facts Today Delhi court has discharged Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy (liquor policy) case. I hope Kejriwal ensures that those journalists are held accountable for the propaganda they spread
4:11

Sushant Sinha is a bootlicker He pretends to be a journalist On 28 Feb 2023, he did a show on the liquor scam in Delhi On that show, he claimed that Manish Sisodia, Satyendra Jain, and Arvind Kejriwal were responsible for the scam Even CBI failed to prove these allegations, but he presented them as established facts Today Delhi court has discharged Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy (liquor policy) case. I hope Kejriwal ensures that those journalists are held accountable for the propaganda they spread

Dr Nimo Yadav 2.0

27,661 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад