16 Oct 2023 2:47 PM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) about the delay in the trials that former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia is facing in the Delhi excise policy scam case. Sisodia has been slapped with money laundering and corruption charges over alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped liquor policy in the national capital. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader has been in custody since February of this year and is being investigated by both the CBI and the ED, but in neither cases, have the arguments on charges begun before the special courts trying the legislator.
This inquiry was posed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who along with Justice SVN Bhatti, is currently hearing Sisodia’s pleas against the Delhi High Court denying him bail in both the CBI and ED cases. The apex court issued notice in his petitions last month, on July 14.
Earlier this month, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the embattled legislator, argued that no money trail directly implicating Sisodia, a sitting legislative assembly member and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, has been unearthed. No evidence, he further argued, linked Sisodia with the independent offence of money laundering in Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Regarding the controversy surrounding the liquor policy, Singhvi argued that the new policy, which was a collective institutional decision aimed at breaking the cartelisation prevalent among private manufacturers - had increased revenues and limited the unreasonable and exorbitant profits earned by wholesalers. The senior counsel also stressed Sisodia's minimal flight risk and his incapacity to influence witnesses, in support of the contention that the criteria for granting bail had been met.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court, among other things, questioned the non-inclusion of the political party allegedly benefitting from the alleged excise policy scam. This inquiry, which the court later clarified was meant to only be a legal question regarding the culpability of suspected co-conspirators, led to a barrage of media reports claiming that the Enforcement Directorate was planning to arraign Aam Aadmi Party as one of the accused. When asked by the press for a statement, Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju categorically stated that no one would be spared if evidence against them is discovered by the central agencies. In the course of the marathon hearing, the court asked the agencies a number of other important questions regarding the investigations over Sisodia's role in the alleged financial irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi liquor policy.
Today, ASG Raju told the bench that the Enforcement Directorate is 'contemplating' making the Aam Aadmi Party an accused in the money laundering case and invoking Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to probe into the aspect of vicarious liability of the political party in connection with the liquor scam. Besides this, he reiterated the seriousness of the offence allegedly committed by Sisodia, pointing to the rank he held as the deputy chief minister, holding 18 portfolios, with exclusive charge of the excise policy, and claiming that there is 'sufficient' evidence of his involvement in money-laundering activities. The sudden and unexplained increase of the wholesalers' profit margin under the excise policy from 5 percent to 12 percent, ASG Raju said, had caused massive losses to not only the public exchequer but also the consumers. This additional profit margin is also being considered as proceeds of crime, the law officer told the bench. He argued -
Further, the additional solicitor-general, inter alia, claimed that Sisodia had tampered with evidence, referring, among other things, to a mobile phone belonging to the former deputy chief minister that has allegedly not yet been recovered. "Even if they are prima facie entitled to bail, on grounds of tampering with evidence, it ought to be denied."
After the law officer's submissions, Justice Khanna inquired about the stage of the trial -
ASG Raju explained, "Nowadays, it has become fashion to delay the proceedings by filing application for inspection of 'unrelied upon' documents. Then inspection takes place, followed by arguments on relevance. This requirement of giving 'unrelied upon' documents has resulted in...Whether right or wrong..."
"Are Section 207 applications delaying the matter?" Justice Khanna asked the law officer.
"As far as the CBI case is concerned. In the ED case, cognizance has been taken and summonses issued. They will try to finish it as early as possible," Raju assured the bench.
The matter will be taken up again tomorrow, at 2 PM.
Background
The origin of the controversy is the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the policy. This policy – which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital – was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of the public exchequer and smacked of corruption, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have claimed. The investigations are currently underway and led to the arrest of, among others, Manish Sisodia – the former deputy chief minister of Delhi and a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party.
Manish Sisodia was first arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a case related to the excise policy on February 26 and later by the Enforcement Directorate on March 9. In the first information report (FIR) registered by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of being instrumental in ‘recommending’ and ‘taking decisions’ regarding the 2021-22 excise policy, “without the approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender”. The central agency has also claimed that the AAP leader was arrested because he gave evasive replies and refused to cooperate with the investigation, despite being confronted with evidence.
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate has alleged that the excise policy was implemented as part of a conspiracy to give wholesale business profit of 12 percent to certain private companies, although such a stipulation was not mentioned in the minutes of meetings of Group of Ministers (GoM). The agency has also claimed that there was a conspiracy that was coordinated by Vijay Nair and other individuals along with South Group to give extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers. Nair was acting on behalf of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, according to the agency.
Sisodia’s bail applications in both cases – investigated by the CBI and the ED respectively – were rejected by Special Judge MK Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi on March 31 and April 28.
Last month, on July 3, the Delhi High Court denied bail to Sisodia in the money laundering case related to the implementation of the previous liquor policy in the national capital. Earlier, on May 30, the high court rejected his bail plea in the corruption case registered by the CBI in relation to the liquor policy. The former litigator has approached the Supreme Court challenging both these verdicts.
Case Details