Supreme Court to review Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia’s bail plea in the Delhi excise policy case after a year in custody.
The Supreme court in India has agreed to consider a request from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia. He is challenging the rejection of his request for release on bail in a case related to suspected wrongdoing in the Delhi excise policy for 2021-22, which has since been canceled. This decision is significant for Sisodia, who has been in custody for almost a year.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Concerned Over Termination of Transwoman Teacher in Schools
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has confirmed the listing of a significant case.
The bench stated,
“I have already instructed [the registry]. It will be listed,”
showcasing their proactive approach towards the matter. However, they did not provide any specific date for when the case would be brought before the court. This statement emphasized the judiciary’s commitment to addressing pending legal issues, albeit without revealing the exact timeline for the proceedings.
Sisodia’s legal troubles stem from allegations of financial irregularities in the Delhi excise policy, which was later scrapped. The Supreme Court, in October, denied bail to Sisodia, pointing to at least one charge that tentatively established windfall gains of ₹338 crore made by wholesalers, a key factor in their decision. The court had critiqued the evidence and arguments presented by Sisodia’s defense and ordered that the trial be expedited, to be completed within six to eight months. Furthermore, it allowed Sisodia the opportunity to apply for bail again if the trial did not progress as expected.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court : Odisha BJP MLA Jayanarayan Mishra Gets Interim Protection in Modesty Case
Adding to the complexity of the case, Sisodia filed a review plea, challenging the basis on which the alleged ₹338 crore figure was calculated and arguing that the grounds for denying bail were not substantiated by the documents presented in court. However, this plea was dismissed by a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, who found no merit in the arguments for reviewing the October 30, 2023, judgment.
The court’s refusal to grant an open court hearing for the review petition, adhering to the practice of deciding such petitions in chambers without oral arguments, highlights the stringent judicial processes involved in such high-profile cases.
