New Delhi: Former Delhi minister Raaj Kumar Anand, who moved from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and subsequently joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has had a politically eventful journey marked by an Enforcement Directorate probe, a customs case, disqualification from the Delhi Assembly under the anti-defection law and other pending criminal proceedings.
While none of these developments, by themselves, establish that Anand is guilty of corruption, they have repeatedly placed his political career under scrutiny.
ED probe over alleged customs evasion and hawala transactions
One of the most serious controversies surrounding Anand relates to a long-running customs case dating back to 2005.
In November 2023, the Enforcement Directorate conducted searches at multiple locations linked to Anand as part of a money-laundering investigation. The agency said the investigation originated from a prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which alleged customs-duty evasion of around ₹7 crore and hawala payments connected with imports from China. The ED also said it had recovered cash and digital records during the searches.
Anand denied wrongdoing and said the case dated back to 2005. He described the ED action as harassment and maintained that he was innocent.
Anti-defection controversy
Another major controversy emerged after Anand’s resignation from AAP.
Anand resigned as a minister and from the AAP in April 2024, publicly accusing the party of being affected by corruption and saying that he could no longer remain associated with it.
He subsequently joined the BSP and contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election from New Delhi. However, he did not immediately resign his membership of the Delhi Legislative Assembly.
The Delhi Assembly subsequently disqualified him under the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution’s Tenth Schedule. The Assembly Speaker said Anand had been given opportunities to present his case but did not appear for the hearings.
The issue was particularly significant because the anti-defection provisions are intended to address situations in which elected legislators leave one political party and join another while retaining their legislative membership.
Anand, however, characterized the action against him as reflecting an alleged “anti-Dalit mentality” within AAP.
The episode subsequently became part of a much larger political narrative around his movement between parties.
From AAP to BSP and then BJP
Anand’s political transition did not end with his departure from AAP.
After leaving AAP, he joined the BSP and contested the Lok Sabha election on its ticket. He later joined the BJP.
This sequence has attracted political scrutiny, particularly because his departure from AAP occurred while the ED investigation concerning the customs case was already in the public domain.
However, claims that his political switch was caused by investigative pressure remain political allegations rather than an established fact. Anand has denied such allegations and has offered his own explanation for leaving AAP.
Patel Nagar’s Raj Kumar Anand has pending criminal case arising from FIR No. 159/2009 at Kirti Nagar police station.
The case involves charges under Sections 323, 325, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to allegations of causing hurt, causing grievous hurt, mischief causing damage and acts allegedly committed by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
However , there is no conviction against Anand.
His affidavit also disclosed the pending customs complaint under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. The same affidavit records two pending criminal cases and no cases in which he had been convicted.
A political career surrounded by continuing questions
Anand’s trajectory — from an AAP minister, to resignation and BSP candidature, to disqualification under the anti-defection law and eventually a BJP candidature — has produced a series of legal and political controversies.
The customs matter in particular requires careful treatment. The allegations made by investigative agencies were serious, but the later CESTAT decision materially changed the legal position surrounding the customs proceedings.
As of the information disclosed in his 2025 election affidavit, Anand had pending cases but no declared convictions.
The record therefore presents a politician who has faced multiple allegations, investigations and legal proceedings, while the final legal status differs from case to case.
