In a pivotal ruling on October 30, the Supreme Court denied bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader, Manish Sisodia. He has been in custody since February 26, facing charges of money laundering and corruption related to alleged irregularities in the framing and execution of a now-revoked liquor policy in Delhi. The investigations, spearheaded by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), delve deep into the allegations that officials from the Delhi government colluded to award liquor licenses to specific traders in exchange for bribes.
Also read – Supreme Court Probes Evidence Against Sisodia In Delhi Excise Policy Controversy (lawchakra.in)
The core of the controversy revolves around claims that these officials adjusted the excise policy to benefit certain liquor vendors. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while delivering the verdict, elucidated,
“Legal questions have been answered in a limited way. In the analysis, there are certain aspects, which we said are doubtful. But one aspect, with regard to the transfer of money, Rs 338 crores, is tentatively established.”
He further emphasized,
“We are dismissing the application for bail, but we have made one pointed observation which is that they have assured that the trial will be concluded within six to eight months. So within three months, if the trial proceeds sloppily or slowly, he’ll be entitled to file an application for bail.”
Previously, the Delhi High Court had turned down Sisodia’s bail plea in the cases initiated by the two central agencies. This led the AAP leader to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
During the hearings, the bench, while addressing the ED, underscored the necessity of a predicate offense preceding the offense of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). They stated that the ED cannot fabricate a predicate offense. Both the CBI and ED had hinted at the possibility of naming AAP as an accused in the ongoing investigation.
The bench sought clarity from the CBI and ED on the presence of any tangible evidence of bribery that could implicate Sisodia in the alleged scam. The court remarked,
“Merely because lobby groups or pressure groups had called for a certain policy shift, that would not by itself imply that corruption or a crime has taken place unless there is an element of bribery involved.”
Tracing back to the roots of this controversy, it began with the introduction of an excise policy by the Delhi Government in 2021. This policy, aimed at a complete overhaul of the liquor trade in Delhi, was later retracted after allegations of irregularities in its implementation emerged. Following these claims, Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a comprehensive CBI probe into the policy’s intricacies.
Also read- Centre To Supreme Court: Citizens Don’t Have Right To Know Political Party Funding (lawchakra.in)
