Today(on 9th August),The Supreme Court of India granted bail to AAP leader Manish Sisodia after 18 months in custody related to the Delhi Excise Policy case. The decision underscores the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th August), The Supreme Court of India granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who had been in custody for 18 months in connection with the controversial Delhi Excise Policy case. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, comes as a major relief for Sisodia and highlights critical aspects of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Court’s Rationale Behind Granting Bail
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was based on the prolonged delay in the trial process, which the court found to have violated Sisodia’s fundamental right to a speedy trial. The bench unequivocally stated-
“Sisodia has been denied his right to a speedy trial, which is a fundamental and sacred right.”
This right, enshrined under Article 21, applies irrespective of the gravity of the alleged offense. The Court emphasized that the delay in the trial process is a severe infringement of this constitutional right.
The Court also made reference to a recent case to underscore the importance of this right:
“In the recent Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case, we addressed this issue and observed that when the court, state, or agency fails to uphold the right to a speedy trial, bail cannot be denied solely on the grounds that the crime is serious. Article 21 applies regardless of the nature of the offense.”
Conditions for Bail
The Supreme Court granted bail to Sisodia with certain conditions attached. As per the Court’s directive, Sisodia is required to furnish a bail bond of Rs.2 lakh. Additionally, the former minister must surrender his passport and report to the police station regularly, as part of the bail conditions.
Evaluation of Trial Delay
The bench scrutinized the delay in the trial process, noting that there was “There’s no realistic possibility of completing the trial within a reasonable timeframe.” and that keeping Sisodia behind bars under these circumstances would be “nothing but a violation of Article 21.” The Court observed that Sisodia has deep societal roots, making him unlikely to flee or avoid facing trial. Moreover, the case against him is heavily reliant on documentation, all of which has already been seized, significantly reducing any risk of evidence tampering.
As the Court pointed out-
“Regarding evidence tampering, the case relies heavily on documentation, which has all been seized, leaving no opportunity for tampering.”
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Manish Sisodia Bail Plea | Court Allows Early Hearing
Inapplicability of the Triple Test
The bench also addressed the triple test for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), ruling that it was not applicable in Sisodia’s case.
The Court noted-
“We have noted judgments stating that in cases of prolonged incarceration, bail can be granted. The triple test does not apply in this instance.”
Rejection of Prosecution’s Arguments
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had argued that the delay in the trial was due to multiple applications filed by Sisodia himself. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this contention, pointing out that Sisodia had only filed a limited number of applications, which had all been allowed by the trial court. The bench stated-
“Reviewing the compliance report from the Assistant Director of ED reveals that preparing one copy of the clone of the unreleased data will take 70 to 80 days. While multiple applications were submitted by various accused, only 13 applications were filed in the CBI case and 14 in the ED case. All of these applications were approved by the trial court.”
The Court further criticized the trial court’s conclusion that Sisodia’s applications had caused delays, calling it “incorrect and rejected.”
The bench observed-
“When we asked the Additional Solicitor General to present any application deemed frivolous by the trial court, none was provided. Therefore, the trial court’s observation that Sisodia has delayed the trial is incorrect and has been rejected.”
Supreme Court’s Stance on Relegating Sisodia to Lower Courts
Addressing the potential for relegating Sisodia back to the trial court or High Court, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this notion. The Court highlighted that when Sisodia’s earlier bail plea was rejected, the apex court had granted him the liberty to approach the Supreme Court for bail after the filing of the chargesheet.
The bench remarked-
“We initially reviewed the order dated June 4. We noted that when Sisodia approached this court, seven months had passed since the first order. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the chargesheet would be filed and the trial would begin, allowing Sisodia the option to revive his plea afterward. Sending Sisodia back to the trial court and then to the High Court would effectively be like playing a game of snake and ladder.”
The Court added that doing so would be a “travesty of justice,” and emphasized-
“Procedures cannot override the pursuit of justice. We believe that the reserved liberty should be interpreted as the right to revive the petition after the chargesheet is filed. Therefore, we do not accept the preliminary objection, and it is rejected.”
Background of the Case
Manish Sisodia has been in custody since February 26, 2023, following his arrest in connection with allegations surrounding the Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22. The case revolves around accusations that officials in the Delhi government, under Sisodia’s purview, manipulated the excise policy to favor certain liquor sellers in exchange for bribes. These funds were allegedly used to finance the AAP’s electoral campaign in Goa.
The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on Sisodia’s bail plea on August 6, following detailed hearings on the matter. The apex court’s decision to grant bail not only serves as a significant legal precedent concerning the right to a speedy trial but also marks a critical juncture in the ongoing investigation into the Delhi Excise Policy case.
Sisodia’s first attempts to secure bail were made in 2023, where his initial applications were turned down, including a rejection by the Supreme Court. At that time, the Supreme Court noted that Sisodia could reapply for bail if the trial moved forward at a sluggish pace. This statement from the Supreme Court provided a glimmer of hope that he might be able to seek bail again, should the trial not proceed efficiently.
Undeterred, Sisodia filed a second round of bail pleas. Unfortunately for him, these too met the same fate as his first attempts—rejection. The persistence to secure his release continued, leading him to file a third bail plea after a chargesheet was officially submitted.
Delhi High Court’s Decision and Subsequent Appeal
In May 2024, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of a trial court, which on April 30, 2024, rejected Sisodia’s latest bail application in cases being investigated by both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This rejection from the High Court prompted Sisodia to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Hearing: The Arguments
During the Supreme Court hearing, Sisodia’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, passionately argued that there was a glaring lack of evidence against his client. He stated-
“There is no statement regarding Manish Sisodia or any WhatsApp chats with him. There is also no evidence of hawala operators associated with him or any WhatsApp conversations involving Sisodia.”
Singhvi emphasized the absence of any direct link between Sisodia and the alleged crimes, challenging the foundation of the accusations against him.
Singhvi also pointed out that Sisodia had already spent nearly half the prison sentence he would face if convicted. He argued-
“Sisodia has already served half of the minimum sentence, with no end in sight to his incarceration. I am not seeking default bail. This case concerns the conclusion of the trial, not its commencement. The earlier date set for the start of the trial has also passed.”
Furthermore, Singhvi responded to the ED’s assertion that Sisodia was deliberately delaying the trial by filing multiple applications. He clarified-
“All applications filed by Sisodia were approved by the trial court and were not challenged, so there is no delay. The key issue is whether the accused has obstructed the trial, not whether he submitted applications one after another.”
ED’s Counter-Argument: Allegations of Deliberate Delay
On the other side, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) countered the arguments presented by Sisodia’s defense. They claimed that Sisodia had been filing numerous applications before the trial court, primarily to request various documents, which they argued had caused significant delays in the trial process. The ED stated-
“Our trial would have started, and these documents were unnecessary except for the applications submitted. The delay is entirely due to these applications, not the agency. A speedy trial cannot be applied using a rigid formula; it must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It seems they are trying to avoid a merits-based hearing, so their best option is to prolong the process.”
Concerns About Tampering with Evidence
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, raised serious concerns about the potential risks if Sisodia were released on bail. He argued that there was a significant possibility that Sisodia could interfere with the judicial process by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Raju warned-
“There are crucial witnesses who could be examined and potentially tampered with. These witnesses may be influenced, and there is a significant risk of this occurring.”
Legal Representation
- Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Vikram Chaudhari, supported by a team of advocates including Vivek Jain, Mohd Irshad, Amit Bhandari, Karan Sharma, Rajat Jain, Sadiq Noor, Mohit Siwach, and Shailesh Chauhan, have been representing Manish Sisodia.
- On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, along with advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gaurav, Hitarth Raja, Abhipriya, Sweta Desai, Aakriti Mishra, Arvind Kumar Sharma, and Mukesh Kumar Maroria, have been appearing for the ED and CBI.
