New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) why Aam Aadmi Party, the alleged beneficiary of the excise policy 'scam', was not made an accused in the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The apex court made the remarks while hearing bail pleas of AAP leader and former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who is facing charges of money laundering and corruption for alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of a now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the ED and CBI: "As far as PMLA is concerned, the whole case is that it went to a political party and that political party is still not an accused. How do you answer that? He is not the beneficiary; the political party is the beneficiary," the bench asked Raju.
The apex court asked Raju if according to him AAP is the beneficiary of the scam and "why was the party not made an accused?". Justice Khanna told Raju that he is putting a question to him and this is not a point that Sisodia's lawyer has raised directly.
The bench also asked Raju whether courts can examine notes part of cabinet meetings and whether such notes have the same immunity that parliamentary proceedings enjoy.
"We would like you to address us, and there are judgments of this court, to what extent cabinet notes are triable in court of law. I believe there are specific constitution bench judgments barring us from examining cabinet notes. I do not know if it applies to Delhi, because it is a Union Territory. Though they have not raised it. Like the issue of how we cannot get into what is said in Parliament, now that has been referred to a larger bench," the bench said.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Sisodia, submitted before the bench that not a single money trail has been found against his client, and being a sitting MLA, he is not a flight risk. Singhvi said: "Everybody else has got bail...Unfortunately, in public life, there are some high-value targets and they won't get bail…"
The ED has claimed a conspiracy, which was coordinated by Vijay Nair and others along with the "south group", was hatched to give extraordinary profit margin to wholesalers, and it was alleged that Nair was Sisodia's close associate. Singhvi argued that there is no material to prove he was Sisodia’s agent and there is also no specific individual allegation against Sisodia, rather "vague allegation is that he assisted in the proceeds of crime but there is no money trail".
The apex court was informed that in both cases by the CBI and ED, chargesheets have been filed. During the hearing, the bench noted that as far as a policy decision is concerned, the Prevention of Corruption Act will apply only if there is an element of bribery or quid pro quo. The hearing in the matter will continue on Thursday.
The apex court was hearing two petitions filed by Sisodia challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court, denying him bail in the cases being investigated by the CBI and the ED.
Also read: ED arrests AAP MP Sanjay Singh in Delhi excise policy case
