'Question not to implicate anyone', SC clarifies question on making AAP an accused during Sisodia bail hearing

The bench said, 'We ask questions, we want answers because when he showed us the chart there was a name…..number two, we don’t get influenced by the media'.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said its query to the Enforcement Directorate on making the AAP an 'accused' in the Delhi liquor policy scam case, was just a legal question and "not to implicate any political party".

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti clarified its position as senior advocate A M Singhvi, on behalf of former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, submitted that the question why the party was not made an accused was portrayed by news outlets as the court wanting Aam Aadmi Party to be made an accused.

“This is the headline, court asks ED why AAP is not an accused and today in the morning all the channels are carrying that ED has indicated that it wants to make AAP an accused,” Singhvi said.

The bench, however, said, “We ask questions, we want answers because when he showed us the chart there was a name…..number two, we don’t get influenced by the media”.

Singhvi said it is in the news that they are making AAP an accused based apparently on the court’s comment. 

The bench said it was not the court's comment, rather it was a question.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju on behalf of the ED and CBI, said, “I was today asked by the media. I said that if there is evidence, we will not spare anybody, and if there is no evidence, we will not harass anybody, that is the statement which I made”.

Singhvi cited newspapers stories saying court asks why AAP was not made an accused and stressed that court had put up a query, but there was utter distortion of the same in such stories.  

With regard to merits, Singhvi said, today the person who has good roots in society, no flight risk- he has been in jail for eight months. There are clear loopholes, and he has a good chance of acquittal, the counsel said.

Before Raju proceeded to put forth his arguments, the bench said it wanted to clarify that its question made on October 4 was not to implicate anyone. 

The bench said, "Suppose as per the prosecution, if A is not being prosecuted, can B or C be prosecuted? In that context the question was posed as a legal question."

The bench asked if the allegation that the excise policy was manipulated for monopolisation and cartelisation was about wholesale trade and not retail sale.

Raju submitted that they are not challenging the policy decision. The bench said, "But the agency says that policy decision was motivated for personal benefits, so will it not mean that you're challenging the policy decision?"

Raju said the policy was framed in a manner to benefit the wholesalers.

"I will show how it was framed and what was the role of Sisodia," Raju said, adding that the accused had a particular policy in mind and they created a facade to make it what they wanted, and that they did not want the old policy.

Raju said that in order to change the policy, the accused got the Dhawan Committee report, but it was not what they wanted. This is why they invited objections and suggestions. In those objections we see the role of the petitioner, he added.

Raju said that the accused had said that anyone who gives Rs 5 crores will be eligible, and in that manner, they could pick and choose who they wanted, and they wanted particular persons to be the wholesalers and modified the policy accordingly.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had asked the Enforcement Directorate why the political party, which is alleged to be a beneficiary, has not been made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.