CJP Funding Row Explodes After RTI Query, Abhijeet Dipke Responds Over ₹1 Crore Claim

An RTI activist sought a financial inquiry into Abhijeet Dipke’s family and CJP funding, while the organisation responded with a PM CARES Fund remark.

A Gujarat-based RTI activist from Surat sought an inquiry into Abhijeet Dipke and the Cockroach Janata Party. The activist also demanded a financial investigation into Dipke’s father. Additionally, questions emerged about ₹1 crore funding received by CJP.

Following the complaint, CJP responded to the allegations. Abhijeet Dipke said his overseas education expenses came through a Boston University scholarship. He also mentioned education loans, which he has already repaid.

Abhijeet Dipke explains education and CJP funding

While speaking with a journalist, Abhijeet Dipke said Boston University scholarship supported his studies abroad. He added that he also used education loans for expenses. According to him, he has cleared those loans.

Regarding CJP funding, Dipke said the organisation follows crowdfunding. He claimed that the process remains transparent for public understanding.

Meanwhile, CJP spokesperson Vaishnavi Gaur commented on the issue through a social media post. She mentioned the PM CARES Fund while responding to the RTI query.

Vaishnavi wrote that people questioning a private individual’s education expenses should also examine PM CARES Fund. She added, “Modi ji will forgive you, do not worry.”

RTI activist raises questions over funding

According to PTI, a Surat resident and RTI activist sought an inquiry into Dipke’s father’s financial background. The activist said Dipke’s father retired from Maharashtra government service. He also stated that his father sent him abroad for higher education.

The activist claimed that CJP functions like a political party despite being an unregistered organisation. He questioned the announcement of ₹1 crore as legal fund support.

Furthermore, the activist requested the Election Commission examine CJP registration status. He referred to Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The RTI activist questioned whether CJP follows legal requirements under existing election rules. The funding dispute has now drawn responses from both sides.