The Supreme Court interrogates ED and CBI over the absence of a political party as an accused party in the Delhi Excise Policy Case
A notable development occurred during the hearing on the Delhi Excise Policy Case when the Supreme Court asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) tough questions. According to media sources, the court questioned why the political party that was allegedly given the profits of the crime had not been listed as an accused in the inquiry.
The critical query was asked by Justice Sanjeev Khanna, who presided over a two-judge panel and was reviewing the bail request of former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who was detained on February 26. In order to understand why the political party had not been involved in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the court requested explanation from Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, who was representing both investigation agencies.
The ASG was urged by the court to clarify its policy regarding Cabinet notes and if it had the right to review them. Inquiring as to whether such limitations apply to Delhi as a Union Territory, Justice Khanna drew attention to Constitution bench decisions that may prohibit the examination of Cabinet notes.
Sisodia’s attorney, senior advocate A. M. Singhvi, said that the authorities were relying on hazy comments to link Sisodia to co-accused Vijay Nair. Singhvi highlighted that the accusations against Sisodia were unfounded and that there were no concrete claims or a money trail.
The liquor policy mentioned in the lawsuit, according to Singhvi, was a decision made collectively to reduce cartelization and boost income. He contrasted the interests of the old lobby that opposed change with the benefits of the new policy in limiting irrational profits and eliminating leakage.
The senior attorney asked the court to take public life into account and said that certain people become “high-value targets” and have trouble getting bail. He emphasized that Sisodia had been refused bail, in contrast to the other defendants in the case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s in-depth inquiries and the defense’s arguments clarified the complexities of the Delhi Excise Policy Case, highlighting the lack of specific accusations against Sisodia and raising doubts about the deletion of the political party from the list of culpable parties.
