SC to hear Manish Sisodia's plea at 3.50 pm today; CBI to interrogate Deputy CM

Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's plea challenging his arrest by the CBI in the liquor case will be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday at 3.50 pm. On the other hand, the CBI officials are all set to interrogate Sisodia for the first time after his arrest and five-day remand.

New Delhi : In the excise policy case, Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and AAP leader M Manish Sisodia on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court (SC) of India here challenging his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). His plea was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Justice D Y Chandrachud, who said the matter would be heard at 3.50 pm today.

Before listing the matter, the CJI commented that the petitioner could seek remedies 'under 482' before the High Court. Advocate A M Singhvi mentioned the Delhi deputy CM's petition challenging his arrest and the manner of CBI investigation in the liquor case. When Singhvi further pleaded for a hearing, the CJI said the matter would be taken at 3.50 pm so that the rest of the board would not be disturbed.

Meanwhile, the CBI officials have made arrangements for the interrogation of the Delhi Deputy CM at their headquarters today. They have prepared a huge list of questions to be posed to Manish Sisodia during the interrogation. The main charge of the CBI has been that being a Minister, Sisodia acted as the driving force behind the now-scrapped excise policy of the Delhi Government.

Manish Sisodia was arrested by the CBI on Sunday and was sent to 5-day CBI custody by the court on Monday. The CBI, which vehemently sought Sisodia's remand, said, the Delhi Deputy CM was the number one accused in the liquor case FIR and the liquor policy conspiracy was formulated in a very planned and secret way.

The CBI told the court that Sisodia had changed his cell phones and the policy margin in the liquor policy was enhanced and eligibility criteria were changed. The court refused to consider the argument put out by Sisodia’s counsel that his client's refusal to explain the reason for changes in the Delhi liquor policy was not tantamount to a ground for remand.