Delhi Excise Policy case: The Supreme Court has asked the ED why the political party which benefited from the excise policy scam was not made an accused? The court’s reference was towards the Aam Aadmi Party. The investigating agencies have accused him of benefiting from this scam.
Delhi Excise Policy: The Supreme Court has asked the ED why the political party which benefited from the excise policy scam was not made an accused? The court’s reference was towards the Aam Aadmi Party. The investigating agencies have accused him of benefiting from this scam. The Supreme Court asked this question during the hearing on the bail petition filed by Manish Sisodia. Sisodia, who is in jail since February this year, has approached the Supreme Court for bail in the case registered by CBI and ED.
ED will answer on Thursday
On Wednesday, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented detailed arguments on behalf of Manish Sisodia. As soon as the bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti was about to complete the hearing, Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju that as far as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is concerned, your entire case is that Here the money reached the political party. But that political party is not an accused yet. How will you answer this? Manish Sisodia is not the beneficiary here. The political party is the beneficiary. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was present during the hearing, said that he will file a reply on this tomorrow i.e. on Thursday. On this the court said that whatever may be your answer, we have asked only one question. Although this question has not been directly raised by Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Sisodia, but we have put it directly before you.
Question on review of cabinet note also
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also asked whether the court could review the notes which were part of the cabinet meeting. And doesn’t this note enjoy the same privileges as parliamentary proceedings? The court told the ASG that as per our understanding, many old decisions of the Constitution Bench prevent judicial review of the cabinet note. But does this apply to Delhi being a Union Territory, we want you to clarify the situation on this.
Singhvi’s argument on behalf of Sisodia
Earlier, Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that Manish Sisodia fulfills all the criteria for granting bail. Singhvi said that Sisodia is a sitting MLA, there is no possibility of him fleeing the country. Both the agencies have filed charge sheets in this case. There is no possibility of Sisodia tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
LG himself approved the excise policy – Singhvi
Singhvi argued that the new liquor policy was not the decision of any one person but the decision was taken at many levels in the government and departments. The Group of Ministers met at least seven times before approving this policy. The then LG not only approved this policy, but also gave two important suggestions regarding this policy. He tried to prove through figures how the new liquor policy brought transparency and brought huge revenue benefits to the government.
ED will answer on Thursday
Singhvi argued that all the accused in these cases have been granted bail. But Manish Sisodia is still in jail. He is facing the consequences of being in public life. Arguments in this case will continue on Thursday. After Singhvi’s arguments for about half an hour, ASG will present the stand on behalf of ED in this matter.
