‘Is there any other evidence?’: How SC grilled investigating agencies in Manish Sisodia bail hearing

The Supreme Court on Thursday posed several difficult questions to investigating agencies in the Delhi liquor policy case with regard to Manish Sisodia’s bail. Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister who held the excise portfolio, was earlier arrested in the case by the Enforcement Directorate as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation. The ED and the CBI have claimed that the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22 allowed cartelisation and favoured certain dealers who paid bribes for licences. The excise policy was scrapped after Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena recommended a CBI probe into alleged corruption. The apex court grilled investigating agencies a day after the Enforcement Directorate arrested Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh in connection with the case. Meanwhile, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Thursday said all the cases filed against his party leaders are ‘false’ and that these cases are a waste of the Centre and its agencies’ time. But what did the apex court ask exactly? Let’s take a closer look: ‘Is there any other evidence?’ As per NDTV, the court bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti contended that the chain of evidence has not been entirely established. It also questioned what proof agencies had against Sisodia – other than the statement of businessman Dinesh Arora. The ED had arrested Arora in July when he was already declared an approver in a related corruption case being probed by CBI. Arora was arrested after he allegedly gave evasive replies during his questioning by the ED and was not cooperating with the investigation. [caption id=“attachment_13169062” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] The Supreme Court asked tough questions of the investigating angencies during Manish Sisodia’s bail hearing. ANI[/caption] Arora is allegedly a close associate of Sisodia. “You have taken two figures, ₹ 100 crore and ₹ 30 crore. Who paid them this? There can be so many people paying the money - not necessarily connected to liquor. Where is the proof? Dinesh Arora himself is the recipient. Where is the evidence? Except for the statement of Dinesh Arora, is there any other evidence?” Justice Khanna asked.

“The chain has not been fully established,” the bench added.

  The ED, in a supplementary charge sheet, has accused Sisodia of receiving bribes from Amit Arora, another businessman and an accused in the case, through Dinesh Arora. The federal probe agency has described this bribe as “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). “Amit Arora paid Rs 2.2 crore to Manish Sisodia through Dinesh Arora for getting policy changes in his favour in the GoM report/excise policy 2021-22… This amount is directly a bribe/kickback to a government functionary and is proceeds of crime under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002. In this manner, Manish Sisodia participated in the generation of this proceeds of crime,” the ED said in its prosecution complaint filed in May. This was a rare instance of an accused-turned-approver (prosecution witness) in the CBI investigation getting arrested by the ED while the two federal agencies probed the same crime. ‘How will you bring him under Act?’ Speaking about the case filed against Sisodia under this Act, Khanna added, “Manish Sisodia is not involved in all this. Vijay Nair (another accused) is there but Manish Sisodia is not in this part. How will you bring him under the money-laundering act? “The money is not going to him. In case it is a company with whom he is involved, then we have vicarious liability. Otherwise, the prosecution falters. Money laundering is entirely a different offence.” “You have to prove that money has to flow from liquor lobby to concerned person… We understand it’s difficult to establish that, but here is the competence of the investigating agency: how do you prove that?” the bench further asked as per News18. [caption id=“attachment_13182202” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] The Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP has denied all allegations of wrongdoing.[/caption] “Let us assume ultimately no money was passed on. Will PMLA trigger? What triggers it is use of proceeds of crime after they are obtained. So you have to connect the person concerned with that directly or indirectly…,” the Supreme Court said as per India Today. The top court Thursday said it was only asking a “legal question” from the Enforcement Directorate about Aam Aadmi Party not being made an accused in the Delhi excise policy case despite being an alleged beneficiary. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED and CBI, argued that the question was not whether Sisodia was involved in illegal activity – either directly or indirectly – but simply that the policy was formulated which “triggers bribes which acts as proceeds of crimes”. Indian Express quoted the bench as stating, “We understand there is a policy change and everybody wants a change that will be beneficial for them. That will be there. If we say special groups are discriminatory… without money consideration, it will not make out an offence… If we go to that extent, there will be no pressure groups or even vested interests when a policy decision is taken then… Some pressure and conflict will always be there. Of course, bribes cannot be accepted.” “Have you seen them discussing this? Will it be admissible? Isn’t the statement (by an approver) hearsay? It is an inference but has to be based on evidence. In cross-examination, this will fall flat in two minutes,” the bench was quoted as saying by India Today. Raju claimed the new excise policy fixed profit margin at 12% to benefit a select few. “Earlier it was that five per cent  (duty) was minimum and 12 per  cent was maximum. No one will keep it more than 5, therefore to make it certain they fixed it at 12 per cent to benefit some. That is the criminal mischief. Therefore the offense,” Raju was quoted as saying by Livemint.

As per India Today, the Supreme Court responded, How do you establish kickbacks were given? Is it entirely on the basis of approvers’ statements?”

The court then adjourned the bail hearing to 12 October. The ruling AAP in Delhi has strongly refuted any allegations of wrongdoing. Answering a question over Supreme Court’s observations on the bail application of Sisodia in the excise policy case, Kejriwal said, “The way the court asked questions, it felt that they (agencies) have in a way lodged wrong cases against us.” Kejriwal said so many cases were lodged by the agencies but their investigation bore no result. Responding to the searches at its leader’s residence, AAP alleged that the ED has “targeted” Singh as he raised issues related to the Adani group in Parliament. “Sanjay Singh kept on raising questions on the issue of Adani and this is why the raids are being conducted at his residence. The Central agencies found nothing earlier and won’t find anything today either. First, they conducted raids at the residence of some journalists yesterday and today, raids conducted at Sanjay Singh’s residence,” AAP spokesperson Reena Gupta said Sisodia had resigned from the Delhi cabinet on 28 February. With inputs from agencies