In a significant development on Monday, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended before the Supreme Court that it possesses ample documentation to prove the deep involvement of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. The former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Sisodia has been embroiled in corruption and money laundering cases linked to this matter and has been in custody for over 17 months without trial commencement.
Presenting the case against granting bail to Sisodia, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju emphasized that the evidence pointed directly to Sisodia’s involvement, refuting claims that the accusations were fabricated. Sisodia was arrested in February 2023, following investigations into the alleged irregularities in the excise policy of 2021-22, which has since been scrapped.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Sisodia, highlighted the extensive evidence collected in the case—493 witnesses and over 69,000 pages of documents—and questioned the justification of his prolonged detention without trial. Singhvi also argued that the delay in trial proceedings raised significant liberty concerns for Sisodia.
The debate in court also touched upon the boundaries between policy-making and criminal actions, with the bench querying the line where policy decisions cross into criminality. This query was in response to the ED’s detailed presentation of the excise policy under scrutiny.
The Supreme Court had previously denied Sisodia’s bail, with the last year’s verdict stipulating that the trial should conclude within six to eight months, a timeline now exceeded. The bench has given Sisodia the liberty to reapply for bail under changed circumstances, which his counsel is now pursuing citing undue delays.
Also Read
The ongoing legal battle also saw accusations from Singhvi that the ED had withheld critical documents from Sisodia, which could affect the fairness of the trial. In contrast, the ED alleges that Sisodia’s actions have significantly delayed the proceedings, further complicating the legal entanglements.
