A day after the Supreme Court asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to explain why the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was not made an accused in the Delhi excise policy case, the court clarified that its intention was not to implicate anybody. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said the explanation was sought as a legal question in context with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
“We want to clarify that our question was not to implicate anyone. Suppose, if as per the prosecution, the beneficiary is A and if A is not being prosecuted, can B or C be prosecuted? In that context, the question was posed,” Justice Khanna said while hearing the bail plea of AAP leader Manish Sisodia.
The clarification came after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sisodia, told the court that the query was being distorted by the media. Singhvi also said that the court's query was “apparently being made basis to making AAP a party”.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said, “I only told media that anyone guilty won't be spared and anyone innocent won't be harassed.”
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the federal anti-money laundering agency to explain why the AAP was not made an accused in the case in which former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, among others, is facing trial. According to the agency, AAP is the main beneficiary of alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy 2021-22.
The bench said, “We need clarity on this issue that as far as the money laundering offence is concerned, he (Sisodia) is named as one of the beneficiaries. Your whole case is that the political party is said to have benefitted from this. But they are not accused. How do you answer that?”
{{/usCountry}}The bench said, “We need clarity on this issue that as far as the money laundering offence is concerned, he (Sisodia) is named as one of the beneficiaries. Your whole case is that the political party is said to have benefitted from this. But they are not accused. How do you answer that?”
{{/usCountry}}The court’s query stumped both sides as this aspect was not argued by Sisodia. The bench told the law officer, “He (Sisodia) has not raised this point. We have put it directly to you. Whatever it is, you answer that tomorrow.”
Sisodia was arrested by CBI in connection with the excise policy in February, and by ED in March.