Srinagar: Chief Minister of Chattisgarh Bhupesh Bhagel has suggested that the release of Vice President Omar Abdullah from preventive detention was related to Sachin Pilot’s resignation from Congress.
In an interview with The Hindu, Mr. Bhagel said, “See, in Madhya Pradesh Jyotiraditya Scindia lost the Lok Sabha election. He wasn’t used to living a life without having any public post. This just made him restless. And as far as Sachin Pilot is concerned, not that I have been tracking the Rajasthan events so closely, but it does make one curious why Omar Abdullah was released? He and Mehbooba Muftiji were booked under the same Sections of the law, while she is still languishing, he is out. Is it because Mr. Abdullah is brother-in-law of Sachin Pilot?”
Mr. Pilot, the Congress number two in Rajasthan, revolted against his own party, claiming that he had the support of 30 MLAs and that Gehlot’s government in the state was in a minority.
Later, Mr. Pilot, who has ruled out joining the BJP, was sacked as deputy chief minister and pradesh Congress committee chief last week over his failure to attend the two Congress legislature party meetings and leading a rebellion against the CM. The 42-year-old leader and his MLAs supporting him have been served a notice by the assembly speaker. They have appealed against the speaker’s notice in the Rajasthan high court.
Meanwhile, National Conference on Monday rejected the claim and expressed “strong objection to the interview given by CM of Chattisgarh Mr. Baghel on 20.07.2020 wherein he has maliciously suggested that the release of our Vice President Mr. Abdullah from preventive detention was somehow related to Mr. Pilot or the present political situation unraveling in Rajasthan,” the NC said in a statement.
The Party unequivocally rejects such as “malicious, false, and politically motivated statements that are used for convenient political posturing.”
“We have taken cognizance of the libelous statement of Mr. Baghel and we are presently in the process of consulting our lawyers and shall be initiating appropriate legal action against the aforesaid statement. A detailed response shall follow thereafter,” it added.
