Liquor Policy Scam Accused: Delhi’s Liquor Policy Scam and the Allegations Against AAP

In recent developments surrounding the Liquor Policy Scam in Delhi, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has set its sights on the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as potential suspects. According to inside sources, the money involved in the scandal found its way into the party’s funds and was allegedly used during elections. Today, during Manish Sisodia’s bail hearing, the Supreme Court might get some answers. The Supreme Court had earlier questioned why the party that benefited from the scam wasn’t named as an accused.

Supreme Court’s Queries to the ED

The Supreme Court raised a significant question to the ED: why hasn’t the political party that benefited from the excise policy scam been named as an accused? The implication seemed to be directed at the Aam Aadmi Party, which has been accused of benefiting from this scandal by investigating agencies. This question was raised during Manish Sisodia’s bail plea hearing. Sisodia, who has been in jail since February this year, sought bail in the case filed by the CBI and the ED.

Why No Allegations Against Political Parties?

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Manish Sisodia, provided detailed arguments. Just as the bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice S. V. Bhatti was about to conclude the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Raju asked, “Your entire case is that the money reached a political party. But that political party hasn’t been named as an accused yet. How do you respond to that?” Here, Manish Sisodia is not the beneficiary; it is the political party that benefited.

Response Expected Today

During the hearing, ASG Raju stated that they would file a response on Thursday. The court clarified that they had asked a question and it doesn’t matter what the answer is. Although Singhvi did not directly address this question during the hearing, we have presented it here for your consideration.

Questions About the Cabinet Note Review

The Supreme Court also asked whether they can review the notes that were part of the Cabinet meetings and whether these notes do not have the same privilege as parliamentary proceedings. The court suggested that according to their understanding, several earlier judgments of the Constitution Bench restrict judicial review of Cabinet notes. However, they wanted clarification regarding whether this applies to Delhi as a Union Territory.

Singhvi’s Arguments on Behalf of Sisodia

Before this, Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that Manish Sisodia stands firm on all aspects of the bail equation. Singhvi emphasized that Sisodia is a sitting MLA, and there is no fear of him fleeing the country. There is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses in this case. Both investigating agencies, the CBI and the ED, have filed charge sheets in the case. There is no likelihood of Manish Sisodia absconding. He is not a beneficiary in this case; it is the political party that benefits.

LG’s Approval of Excise Policy

Singhvi also argued that the new excise policy was not a decision of one individual but a collective decision made at multiple levels of the government and departments. Before granting approval for this policy, the ministerial group held at least seven meetings. The then Lieutenant Governor (LG) not only approved the policy but also provided two essential suggestions regarding its implementation. He tried to establish through records how transparency was brought into the new excise policy and how the government reaped significant financial benefits from it.

The Liquor Policy Scam in Delhi has taken a new turn with the ED’s investigation extending to the Aam Aadmi Party. While Manish Sisodia’s bail hearing is underway, the Supreme Court’s questions about the involvement of political parties and the Cabinet note review add complexity to the case. The verdict on these issues is awaited, but for now, the focus remains on unraveling the intricate web of the Liquor Policy Scam.