The Supreme Court on Monday denied bail to ex-Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the liquor excise policy case, noting that a money trail of Rs 338 crore had been “tentatively established” and that the “rule of law applies equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State”.
In refusing Mr Sisodia bail, the court accepted the CBI’s argument against the Aam Aadmi Party leader – that there is a “carefully hatched conspiracy… (to) assure unjust enrichment” of a select few, and that the policy “facilitated getting bribes” from wholesale distributors “assured exorbitant profits”.
READ | “Money Trail Tentatively Established”: No Supreme Court Relief For Manish Sisodia
In a 41-page order the top court also noted the CBI’s claim that the now-withdrawn policy “favoured and promoted cartelisation”, pointing to the permit granted to Indo Spirit despite several such complaints.
Mr Sisodia can apply for bail again after three months, a two-judge bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said. Earlier the court had said Manish Sisodia could not be kept in jail indefinitely.
What Did Supreme Court Say In Manish Sisodia Bail Plea?
The court noted the CBI’s claim that the previous policy had been modified to facilitate bribes from wholesale distributors by enhancing their commission from five per cent to 12 per cent.
This change, the court said, meant they earned seven per cent more commission for the 10 months the policy was in place. This figure, which “cannot be challenged”, is Rs 338 crore, the court added.
This means the policy – which deviated from expert opinions on Mr Sisodia’s orders, according to the CBI – was created to provide windfall gains to select distributors in return for kickbacks, the court added. Further, the court also accepted the claim income so earned was recycled partly and returned in the form of bribes, portions of which were allegedly used by the AAP for the Goa election.
READ | “Want To Clarify…”: Supreme Court On “Making AAP An Accused” Question
The CBI had alleged Mr Sisodia was “aware that three liquor manufacturers have 85 per cent share in Delhi market… as per the new exercise policy, each manufacturer could appoint only one wholesale distributor (but) wholesale distributors could enter into agreements with multiple manufacturers”.
The court accepted the claim that this “favoured and promoted cartelisation”, noting “large wholesale distributors with high market share… were ensured to earn exorbitant profits”.
READ | Manish Sisodia Can’t Be In Jail Forever: Supreme Court To Probe Agencies
The court also referred to the role of Vijay Nair – described as the “go-between” and “co-confidante” of Mr Sisodia – and that he had “assured” the “South Group” cartel they would be made (and they were made) distributors for Pernod Ricard, one of the biggest liquor manufacturers in the domestic market.
What Is Delhi Liquor Policy Case?
The case pertains to the now-scrapped 2021 policy, under which the ruling AAP withdrew from liquor sales and allowed private individuals to run stores.
The Delhi government reported a 27 per cent increase in income from the policy and generated Rs 8,900 crore in revenue. Trouble, however, erupted after reports Mr Sisodia had bent, if not violated, rules to award liquor licenses.
READ | NDTV Explainer: All You Need To Know About Delhi Liquor Policy Case
Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena then ordered a CBI inquiry that then snowballed into an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate and the arrests of the senior AAP leader and others.
The agency has claimed the policy lost the Delhi government Rs 2,800 crore.
NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.
