A disservice to the cause of justice

The observations made by the Delhi High Court while rejecting former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s bail plea in the liquor policy case amounted to a definitive indictment, and occasioned the question whether anything more is needed to convict him.

The single-judge bench said that the prosecution had prima facie established a case of money-laundering under the PMLA, but the judge’s words sounded like final truth in the matter.

The judge said the case exemplified grave abuse of public authority by Sisodia who “used deceptive methods to show that the policy had public support though it was framed to enrich a few individuals”. The court said his conduct amounted to a “great betrayal of democratic principles”.

These comments go beyond the impressions of a court while hearing a bail plea. The court almost pronounced a judgement without the sentence. 

Two agencies are investigating the case against Sisodia, who has been in jail for over a year now. The CBI is examining the criminal aspect of the case, and the ED is probing the money-laundering charge. The bail petitions have a long history and the comments made by courts have varied.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had last year strongly criticised the probe agencies for the lack of adequate evidence in the case. It had asked the ED if it had any proof other than the statement of a co-accused-turned-approver, and it even said that the case would “fall flat in two hearings”.

The court had told the agencies clearly: "You cannot keep him behind (bars) for an indefinite period. You cannot keep him behind (bars) like this”. However the court rejected his bail petition, and later his review and curative petitions were also rejected.

The court said that while several charges levelled by the ED were debatable, “there is one clear ground or charge…which is free from perceptible legal challenge and the facts as alleged are tentatively supported by material and evidence.”

That shows that there were varying perceptions about the charges even as the bail pleas were rejected.

In such a situation, the comments made by the High Court this week would sound too harsh and conclusive. It may even be doubted whether statements like “great betrayal of democratic principles”, which are usually made by political opponents, are right at this stage of the case.

The matter before the court was a request for bail, and even if it is very difficult to get bail under the PMLA, it shouldn’t be that there is never a light at the end of the tunnel that the accused are pushed into. It is also unfair to declare the accused guilty even before the trial starts.