Parties term Arora’s resignation political gimmick, slam minister

The recent resignation of AAP MLA and minister Sanjeev Arora as Managing Director of Hampton Sky Realty Ltd has triggered a fresh political storm, with opposition parties calling it a “political gimmick” and demanding accountability.

The move comes in the wake of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, accusing Arora of conflict of interest, misuse of power and benefiting from questionable land conversion decisions while still heading his real estate firm.

Senior Congress leader and former Cabinet minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu led the charge, dubbing the resignation a ‘panic-driven, face-saving formality’. “For over three years, Arora wore two hats — as a businessman profiting from government policies and a minister tasked with public welfare,” Ashu alleged. “This resignation letter isn’t an act of integrity, it’s an admission of guilt in disguise.”

Ashu called upon the Chief Minister to clarify whether Arora’s dual role had official approval or was government oversight. He demanded that the minister be divested of his portfolio, pending a fair investigation.

Punjab BJP general secretary Anil Sareen dismissed the resignation outright, stating that, “This is nothing but a political gimmick. You can’t whitewash serious allegations with a symbolic gesture.”

Senior Shiromani Akali Dal leader Maheshinder Singh Grewal echoed Sareen’s sentiment, calling Arora’s move a calculated ploy aimed at deflecting public scrutiny. “This entire act is a puppet show. The resignation has come only after legal heat intensified. It’s not about conscience, it’s just choreography,” he said.

The PIL reportedly cites previous ED and SEBI actions against Arora’s firms, as well as the controversial conversion of industrial land into residential colonies, allegedly for profit.

Backdrop of legal allegations

According to the PIL, Arora remained actively involved in Hampton Sky Realty Ltd even after assuming ministerial office. His companies are alleged to have benefited from decisions made under his ministerial authority — raising questions about transparency and public interest violations.