‘Can’t interfere directly’: SC dismisses Sisodia’s bail plea

In his order, the trial court noted Manish Sisodia cannot be expected to make self-incriminating statements, but interest of justice required him to come up with legitimate answers to the questions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea by Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia to release him from Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) custody over a corruption case after observing that entertaining the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader’s petition directly, without his approaching the jurisdictional courts first, will set a “very wrong precedent”.

AAP workers protest against Manish Sisodia’s arrest on DDU Marg on Monday. (Vipin Kumar/HT Photo)

While refusing to entertain Sisodia’s plea, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud remarked that Sisodia cannot harp upon previous instances involving journalists when the apex court had directly intervened in the wake of threats to constitutional rights of free speech and expression.

“There is a distinction between cases involving journalistic freedoms and your case. Here, it is a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. We cannot interfere directly...it will set a very wrong precedent. Just because an incident has occurred in Delhi, we cannot entertain it directly. You have a full alternate remedy available in the form of a petition before the concerned high court under Section 482 of CrPC (for quashing of charges),” the bench, which also comprised justice PS Narasimha, told senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Sisodia in the matter.

While Singhvi pressed that there was no need to arrest his client and that situation was extraordinary since several political leaders from the Opposition were being arrested by federal agencies hampering the democracy and disturbing the basic structure of the Constitution, the bench remained firm that the same arguments could be made before the jurisdictional courts – trial court or the Delhi high court, and that the Supreme Court would not intervene as the first forum.

“How can you come under Article 32 (writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights) directly to this court for bail when you are yet to exercise the other remedies in law available to you? The question is not about whether this court has the power to interfere or not. We undoubtedly have the power but the real issue is whether we should exercise this power in a given case... and we don’t want to interfere in such a matter at the first instance. You can make all your points before the high court,” it told the senior counsel.

At this point, Singhvi requested the bench to indicate in its order that if Sisodia moves for bail, it would be decided expeditiously. To this, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, pointed out that the agency may ask for further custodial interrogation of Sisodia and any observation by the top court at this stage may influence the proceedings before the trial court.

The bench then proceeded to record in its order: “The petitioner has efficacious alternative remedies. We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 32 at this stage. Thus, the petition is dismissed.”

On Monday, a special court in Delhi allowed five days of custodial interrogation of the AAP leader, noting he failed to provide satisfactory answers to the CBI’s questions and explain the incriminating evidence allegedly against him.

In his order, the trial court noted Sisodia cannot be expected to make self-incriminating statements, but the interest of justice and a fair investigation required him to come up with some legitimate answers to the questions. It added that Sisodia’s custodial interrogation was required as his subordinates have “disclosed certain incriminating facts against him” and “...thus, for a fair investigation, some genuine answers to the questions being put to him would be required.”

Based on initial investigations, CBI and ED have claimed Sisodia is the architect of the now-scrapped excise policy, in which ₹100 crore kickbacks were allegedly paid to favour certain liquor manufacturers and wholesalers.

CBI, in its remand plea before the trial court on Monday, cited certain oral and documentary evidence against Sisodia and said they substantiate the allegations that Sisodia played a key role in the scam.

Sisodia’s lawyers told the trial judge that not only was the arrest made is in violation of the norms and directions of the Supreme Court, CBI could not press for custodial interrogation in its bid to extract confessional statements from him. Not responding with answers that the agency wants cannot be construed as a lack of cooperation, argued Sisodia’s lawyer, adding the policy was approved by the then lieutenant governor (LG) who did not object to tweaks that are now part of the allegations.