By – Prakarsh Kastwar
Why the AAP was not added as an accuser in the case where Manish Sisodia and other defendants are on trial was a question raised by the Supreme Court.
A day after requesting an explanation from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding why the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was not named as a defendant in the Delhi Excise Policy Case, the Supreme Court made it clear that its goal was not to name any specific parties as suspects. The explanation was requested as a legal question in relation to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, according to a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti.
“We want to be clear that the purpose of our query was not to incriminate anyone. Can B or C be prosecuted if, in accordance with the prosecution, A is the beneficiary and A is not? When hearing AAP leader Manish Sisodia’s bail request, Justice Khanna observed, “The question was put in that context.
After telling the court that the question was being misrepresented by the media, senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is representing Sisodia, provided the explanation. Singhvi added that “apparently being made basis to making AAP a party” was the court’s inquiry.
Raju added, “I only told media that anyone guilty won’t be spared and anyone innocent won’t be harassed.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court demanded an explanation from the government anti-money laundering organization as to why the AAP was not named as a defendant in the case against the former deputy chief minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, and others. The agency claims that the Delhi excise policy 2021–22 has irregularities, with AAP being the primary benefactor.
The bench declared, “We seek clarification on this matter that he (Sisodia) is mentioned as one of the beneficiaries as far as the money laundering violation is concerned. Your entire argument centers on the claim that the political party benefited from this. However, they are not charged. What’s your response to that?
Both sides were baffled by the court’s question because Sisodia did not defend this point. The bench informed the legal representative that Sisodia had not brought forward this issue. You have received it directly from us. Your response is due tomorrow, whatever it may be.
In connection with the excise policy, Sisodia was detained by the CBI in February and the ED in March.