Being apolitical doesn't mean "not touching politicians", it means "applying rules consistently regardless of politics and not designing rules for political gain".

To not touch politicians would be to take the stand that some people are important politicians and some are not, that would be an inherently political distinction. Thus that route is not apolitical (short of just not moderating at all, that is possible but does not create a platform that people want to use).

I don't know anything about indian politics, or this case apart from what is said in the article. I don't know if this account was banned for apolitical reasons. But to take the position that banning a political party is fundamentally taking sides in a political issue is wrong.