'No Money Has Come To Manish Sisodia, How Will You Bring Him Under Money Laundering?' Supreme Court Asks ED In Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case

The bail proceedings of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) over the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam are currently ongoing before the Supreme Court. In today's marathon session, spanning approximately four and a half hours, the Supreme Court put forth a barrage of questions towards the investigative agencies. This unfolded during the hearing presided over by a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. The bench was considering two petitions filed by Sisodia, challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court, which had previously denied him bail in connection with the investigations being conducted by the CBI and the ED. Setting the stage for this extensive inquiry directed towards Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was appearing for the ED and CBI, Justice Khanna commented, "Normally, in a bail matter, we don't take so long."1. Is The 'Policy Decision' Under Challenge?Seeking clarification regarding the nature of submissions of the investigative agencies, Justice Khanna asked if the Delhi government's Excise Policy for 2021-22 was under challenge. To this, ASG SV Raju submitted that the agencies were not challenging the policy decision. Justice Khanna then asked–"But you say that policy decision was motivated for personal benefits. So will it not mean that you're challenging the policy decision?"The ASG responded in a negative and reiterated that the submission forwarded by the agencies was that the policy in question was framed in a manner which benefitted certain wholesalers and Sisodia had a role to play in the same. He added that the policy was framed as a "facade" to replace the old excise policy which was not favoured by the Delhi government. In order to change the same, a report was sought from the Ravi Dhawan expert committee. However, when the said report came out as unfavourable, causing Sisodia to be unhappy with the same, objections and suggestions were invited against it. He stated–"The old policy was not what they wanted. To change the policy they got Dhawan committee report but it wasn't what they wanted. So then they invited objections and suggestions. In those objections we see the role of the petitioner."2. Is Asking People To Support A Policy Wrong?ASG Raju, furthering his submissions, stated that the public opinion of stakeholders was concealed and manipulated to frame the new excise policy. In this context, he stated that various parties were asked to draft emails raising objections against the Ravi Dhawan report. He added that these emails were copied from a handwritten note which was handed over by Sisodia to Zakir Khan "with the direction to get multiple emails on the said lines sent to the dedicated email address”. These emails on issues such as allotment of retail licences through auction of zones, reduction of excise and VAT, as well as enhancement of licence fee, and increase in the number of liquor vends were eventually sent to manipulate public opinion, as per the ASG. He submitted that ultimately, all these provisions were added in the new excise policy despite being completely different than the recommendations of the expert committee. To this submission, Justice Khanna stated–"Mr Raju, it's very hard to believe...A policy is put up. Some political leaders think this policy should be this way. They make statements. They take feedback. They are asking people to support policy- is that wrong?"ASG Raju reiterated that genuine suggestions would not have been a problem but the identically worded emails established that it had been a "copy-paste job". The ASG then stated that Sisodia had been working with a pre-conceived idea to formulate the excise policy in a manner well suited for certain parties. In this context, he stated that Sisodia had asked former excise commissioner Rahul Singh to prepare a draft cabinet note. However, since the said note did not suit his idea of how the policy had to be framed, a new note was framed and placed before the cabinet of ministers and the old not was destroyed. To this submission, Justice Khanna remarked–"Mr Raju, sometimes bureaucrats make something. Sometimes political executive may say please prepare it this way. Political executive sent a note saying this is not how we wanted it to be..."ASG Raju responded to this by stating that the fact that the note was destroyed clearly established that there was "something in it which they didn't want to be seen".3. Is Statement That Vijay Nair Was Working For Sisodia Not Just An Opinion?As the proceedings continued, the ASG submitted that as per an approver's statement, Vijay Nair was working on behalf of Sisodia. To this, Justice Khanna said– "Whose statement is that? That's his opinion. Two questions in the cross examination and this will fall flat. It's an opinion, he's not an expert. Expert opinion is different. It's an...

'No Money Has Come To Manish Sisodia, How Will You Bring Him Under Money Laundering?' Supreme Court Asks ED In Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

'No Money Has Come To Manish Sisodia, How Will You Bring Him Under Money Laundering?' Supreme Court Asks ED In Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers