Probe Pressure, Political Shift: Mittal the Latest Example

Addressing a press conference, Singh said that until recently BJP leaders had levelled serious allegations against Mittal. However, following Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids on his premises, Mittal has decided to join the BJP, prompting AAP to question the timing and intent behind the sequence of events.

BY PC Bureau

NEW DELHI, April 25, 2026 — The Enforcement Directorate (ED) conducted searches on April 15, 2026, at premises linked to Ashok Kumar Mittal, a Rajya Sabha MP from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in connection with alleged financial irregularities. The searches covered locations linked to his educational and business interests, including the Lovely Professional University.

Subsequently, on April 24, 2026, Mittal resigned from the AAP. AAP has  linked the timing of the developments to broader political trends where probe agencies are used to arm-twist opposition leaders to switch side.

“Until yesterday, BJP leaders accused Ashok Mittal of every crime under the sun. Then the ED raided his premises, and Mittal chose to join the BJP. Now he will come out clean after going through the BJP’s ‘washing machine.’ This is how probe agencies are being misused,” said Sanjay Singh, AAP leader, at a press conference.

Indian politics has witnessed recurring allegations from opposition parties that leaders facing investigations by central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) later join the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its allies, after which the pace of investigations appears to slow or diminish. The BJP has consistently rejected these claims, asserting that agencies act independently and on the basis of evidence.

DDifferent studies have showns that more than two dozens  prominent opposition politicians  switched sides while facing probes during the last 12 years of BJP rule. In a majority of these cases, enforcement action either slowed, stalled, or did not result in convictions. Opposition parties have described the trend as a “political washing machine,” alleging selective use of investigative agencies.

Several high-profile cases are frequently cited in this context. In Maharashtra, Late Ajit Pawar, a senior leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), joined the ruling alliance with the BJP in July 2023 after leading a split in the party and was sworn in as Deputy Chief Minister. pawar was facing huge corruption cases related to  the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank at the time of joining the NDA.

READ: Kavitha Launches Telangana Rashtra Sena, Revives TRS Legacy

In West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari, formerly of the All India Trinamool Congress, joined the BJP in November 2020 amid scrutiny in the Narada sting and Saradha chit fund cases. He currently serves as Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly, with legal proceedings continuing.

READ:

IMPORTANT: ED raids on Ashok Mittal and family: Mittal was made deputy leader of AAP in Rajya Sabha just two weeks ago replacing Raghav Chadha and runs Lovely Professional Univ. Why does every ED action seem to carry a political message in its timing and intent? 🙏

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) April 15, 2026

Similarly, in Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma moved from the Congress to the BJP in 2015 after facing allegations linked to the Saradha case. He later became Chief Minister in 2021. Opposition leaders have pointed to the reduced visibility of investigations following his switch, although no court has established wrongdoing.

More recently, Ashok Chavan, a former Chief Minister from the Congress, joined the BJP in February 2024. His move came amid longstanding scrutiny related to the Adarsh Housing Society case, which has seen prolonged judicial proceedings.

Opposition parties argue that investigative agencies disproportionately target non-BJP leaders and intensify action around elections or political realignments, while cases appear to lose momentum once leaders join the ruling alliance. The BJP and government agencies reject these allegations, maintaining that investigations are conducted strictly within the legal framework and that courts, not political actors, determine outcomes.

Data trends have added to the debate. Reports indicate a sharp rise in ED cases since 2014, with a significant number involving political figures. Critics interpret this as selective targeting, while the government attributes it to stricter enforcement of financial laws.

The issue remains unresolved, as many of the cases are still pending before courts and legal processes often take years to conclude. As a result, while correlations between political shifts and investigative developments continue to be debated, a definitive causal link has not been established.