New Delhi – In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has refused to grant bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the liquor excise policy case. The court’s decision comes in the wake of the establishment of a “tentative money trail” amounting to Rs 338 crore, highlighting the court’s unwavering commitment to upholding the “rule of law that applies uniformly to all citizens and institutions, including the State.”
In its decision, the court endorsed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) argument against the prominent Aam Aadmi Party leader. The CBI contended that there existed a “meticulously orchestrated conspiracy… to guarantee unjust enrichment” for a select few, and that the policy in question “facilitated the acceptance of bribes” from wholesale distributors, ensuring “excessive profits.”
The 41-page court order underscored the CBI’s assertion that the now-defunct policy “favored and endorsed cartelization,” exemplified by the permit granted to Indo Spirit, despite several prior complaints to the contrary.
Manish Sisodia retains the option to reapply for bail after a three-month interval, as stated by a two-judge panel consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. It is essential to note that the court had earlier ruled against the indefinite incarceration of Manish Sisodia.
The Supreme Court’s assessment of the matter delves into the CBI’s contention that the previous policy was modified to enable the solicitation of bribes from wholesale distributors by raising their commission from five percent to twelve percent.
This alteration resulted in these distributors gaining an additional seven percent commission over the ten months of the policy’s implementation, amounting to a sum of Rs 338 crore. The court emphasized that this figure, which remains unquestionable, underscores the policy’s primary objective: to confer windfall gains upon favored distributors in exchange for kickbacks. Notably, a portion of this income allegedly found its way back into circulation through bribes, with portions believed to have been utilized during the Goa elections by the Aam Aadmi Party.
The CBI had accused Manish Sisodia of being “aware that three liquor manufacturers held an 85 percent share in the Delhi market… and under the new excise policy, each manufacturer could appoint only one wholesale distributor; however, wholesale distributors could enter into agreements with multiple manufacturers.”
The court acknowledged this claim, affirming that it “favored and promoted cartelization” by ensuring “significant profits” for substantial wholesale distributors with extensive market presence.
The Delhi liquor policy case revolves around the policy adopted in 2021, subsequently withdrawn by the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, which shifted liquor sales to private individuals.
The Delhi government reported a 27 percent increase in revenue from the policy, generating a substantial sum of Rs 8,900 crore. However, controversy erupted following allegations that Manish Sisodia had circumvented, if not violated, rules in the awarding of liquor licenses.
This prompted the Delhi Lieutenant Governor to initiate a CBI investigation, which expanded to include probes by the Enforcement Directorate and the subsequent arrests of senior Aam Aadmi Party figures and others. The CBI contended that the policy resulted in a Rs 2,800 crore loss to the Delhi government.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s denial of bail to Manish Sisodia underscores its commitment to ensuring justice, transparency, and the rule of law, upholding the principle that all citizens, including prominent political figures, are held accountable under the same legal standards.
