The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed probing agencies, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to explain why they have not included the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), alleged to have received the proceeds of a crime, as an accused in the Delhi excise policy case.
The ED and CBI will respond to the Supreme Court’s query on Thursday.
The court made this inquiry during the hearing of a plea for bail by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested on February 26.
Also Read: AAP MP Sanjay Singh arrested by ED in Delhi liquor case
Justice Sanjeev Khanna, presiding over a two-judge bench alongside Justice S V N Bhatti, raised the question regarding the absence of the political party as an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“As far as the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is concerned, your whole case is that it went to a political party. That political party is still not an accused. How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary, the political party is the beneficiary.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S V Raju, representing the investigative agencies, assured the court that he would address this concern during Thursday’s proceedings. Furthermore, the Supreme Court sought clarification from ASG Raju on the status of Cabinet notes in the case and whether they could be subject to examination.
Also Read: ‘ED raids on Sanjay Singh show BJP resorting to desperate measures’: Arvind Kejriwal
Justice Khanna said, “I believe there are Constitution bench judgements barring us from examining Cabinet notes. I do not know if it applies to Delhi because it is a Union Territory.”
Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, representing Manish Sisodia, argued that the agencies were relying on vague statements to establish a link between Sisodia and co-accused Vijay Nair, but there was “no specific allegation” and “no money trail.”
Singhvi emphasised, “The allegation is that Vijay Nair is said to be Sisodia’s close associate. But there is no material to prove he was my agent. The reliance is on various vague statements that have to be proven during trial… There is no specific individual allegation against Sisodia. Vague allegation is that he assisted in the proceeds of crime. But there is no money trail.”
Also Read: Gujarat HC initiates contempt proceedings against 4 policemen in Kheda flogging case
Singhvi also pointed out that all the other accused in the case had been granted bail except Sisodia. He said, “Unfortunately, in public life, there are some high-value targets, and they won’t get bail.” Highlighting the liquor policy in question, Singhvi said that it was a “collective decision” aimed at preventing cartelization and increasing revenue.
“The new policy restricted the scope for unreasonable profits and capped it at 12%. There were massive leaks in the old policy,” he said, adding that “the old lobby wanted the status quo to continue,” he explained.
Singhvi urged the judges to consider the nuances of the case, stating, “Judges have to read between the lines also and I urge your lordships to do so. Everything cannot be black and white.