The Election Commission of India (ECI) has issued a sharp response to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s claims regarding the alleged poisoning of the Yamuna River. The poll body has demanded that Kejriwal provide factual evidence supporting his accusations by 11 AM on January 31.
The Commission has specifically asked for details regarding the type, quantity, and nature of the alleged poison, as well as the methodology used by Delhi Jal Board engineers to detect it. It further instructed Kejriwal to refrain from conflating the issue of high ammonia levels in Yamuna water with allegations of a deliberate poisoning attempt leading to mass genocide.
Kejriwal, in a recent statement ahead of the upcoming assembly elections, accused the BJP-led Haryana government of deliberately contaminating Delhi’s water supply to create unrest and shift the blame onto the AAP administration. He claimed that Delhi’s drinking water supply, sourced from Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, had been compromised but was intercepted by vigilant engineers of the Delhi Jal Board before it reached residents.
In response to the ECI’s notice, Kejriwal defended his remarks, stating they were made in the context of an urgent public health crisis. He highlighted that the ammonia levels in raw water received from Haryana were “extreme” and beyond the treatment capacity of Delhi’s water plants.
“The statements were made in furtherance of an imperative public duty to highlight the severe toxicity and contamination of raw water received from Haryana, which presents an imminent and direct threat to public health,” Kejriwal wrote in his reply.
The Election Commission emphasized that ensuring access to clean water is a governance issue that must be addressed by responsible authorities. It also clarified that it would not arbitrate on long-standing water-sharing and pollution disputes during the election period, leaving the matter to the discretion of competent government agencies.
If Kejriwal fails to provide substantive evidence supporting his claims, the Commission warned that appropriate action would be taken in the matter. The controversy comes at a crucial juncture, with elections approaching, adding political heat to the ongoing debate over water quality and inter-state governance.
