On February 4, 2025, the Delhi Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Chief Minister Atishi, who is also contesting the Kalkaji seat as an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate. The FIR alleges that she violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by using a government vehicle for political purposes and obstructing public servants on duty. The complaint, originally filed on January 8, 2025, led to swift action, igniting a heated debate on political fairness and election regulations.
Model Code of Conduct (MCC)
The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is a set of guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India to ensure free and fair elections. It applies to all political parties and candidates once elections are announced, restricting the use of government resources for campaign activities.
One of its key provisions is that government vehicles and personnel cannot be used for electioneering. The aim is to prevent misuse of official power and ensure a level playing field for all candidates. Any violation of these guidelines can result in action by the Election Commission, including warnings, legal proceedings, or even disqualification in severe cases.
Allegations Against CM Atishi
The FIR was filed at Govindpuri police station in southeast Delhi based on a complaint by the returning officer of the Kalkaji constituency. The complaint alleges that a Public Works Department (PWD) vehicle, belonging to the Delhi government, was used by Atishi for political purposes, which is a clear violation of the MCC.
In addition, the complaint accuses her of obstructing public servants while they were performing their duties. These allegations have fueled a major political debate, with opposition parties questioning her adherence to election rules while AAP leaders call it an attempt to target their party unfairly.
Atishi’s Response to the FIR
Following the public disclosure of the FIR, Atishi strongly questioned the neutrality of the Election Commission and the Delhi Police. She pointed out that similar violations by leaders of other political parties have not resulted in such swift action. She called for equal enforcement of the MCC and raised concerns about whether certain political figures receive preferential treatment in election-related cases.
AAP’s Reaction
AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal also criticized the FIR, claiming that while politicians from other parties engage in vote-buying and illegal campaign practices, strict action was taken only against Atishi. He described this as an attempt to suppress AAP, which has positioned itself as a party challenging the traditional political system.
The Delhi government has also questioned the timing of the FIR, suggesting that it was intended to damage AAP’s election campaign. Political analysts argue that this case highlights the broader issue of how election laws are enforced and whether they are applied fairly across all parties.