Why no money trail, SC asks ED in Sisodia case

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Enforcement Directorate (ED) how an offence could be made out against former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia if there was no apparent money trail connecting him directly with a lobby that allegedly paid kickbacks to get benefits under the Capital's now-scrapped excise policy.

- Abraham Thomas

Hearing the politician's bail petition, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti observed that there were procedural and factual flaws in the federal agency's case against Sisodia under the 2002 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA)

"How will you bring him (Sisodia) under PMLA? Has money gone to his pocket? The chain is not fully established. Money came to somebody else, its acquisition and use is by somebody else... You have to establish the flow of money from the liquor lobby to the accused," the bench asked additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, who represented ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation, both of which are investigating alleged bribery linked to the 2021 Delhi excise policy.

But the court didn't grant Sisodia bail on Thursday, fixing October 12 as the next date of hearing.

The bench said most of the allegations in the corruption case registered by the CBI against Sisodia were "hearsay", based on the statements made by approvers and would not pass scrutiny before the trial court without any concrete material. "Two questions in the cross-examination and this will fall flat," justice Khanna observed.

The queries that appeared to punch holes in the ED case against Sisodia came a day after the agency arrested senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh in connection with the excise policy.

"Pressure groups are always there but policy changes without money consideration will not matter. It's the money part which makes it an offence. If we go to an extent to say that there cannot be any pressure groups, no government can function...Lobbying will always be there. Of course, bribes cannot be accepted," the bench told Raju.

The court also appeared to raise questions about the proof offered by the agency.