Manish Sisodia granted bail by SC after 17 months in jail.
Justice Gavai highlighted the excessive duration of Manish Sisodia’s incarceration, noting that he had spent 17 months in jail without the trial even commencing. He underscored this as a significant deprivation of Sisodia’s right to a speedy trial, a fundamental principle of justice. Gavai emphasized that such prolonged detention without trial is not only unfair but also goes against the basic tenets of the legal system, which aims to ensure that justice is both swift and fair. This remark was pivotal in the decision to grant Sisodia bail.
Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia was granted bail by the Supreme Court on a Friday morning, 18 months after his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the alleged excise policy scam. The case, which has drawn significant attention due to its political implications and the high-profile nature of the accused, saw a pivotal ruling from the apex court. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized the importance of a “speedy trial” and cautioned against what they termed a “travesty of justice” should Sisodia be returned to a trial court without further delay.
The court’s decision to grant Sisodia bail was not merely procedural but rooted in fundamental principles of justice. Justice Gavai, in his remarks, underscored the excessive duration of Sisodia’s incarceration without the commencement of his trial. He pointed out that such prolonged detention without trial violates the accused’s right to a speedy trial, a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. The bench further noted that keeping Sisodia incarcerated for an “unlimited time” would be a severe infringement upon his fundamental rights, particularly given that the trial had yet to begin after 18 months of imprisonment.
“In the matter of liberty, every day counts,” remarked the Justice Gavai-led bench, reflecting the urgency and gravity of the situation. The remark was made during the proceedings when the bench, also comprising Justice Viswanathan, reserved its judgment after hearing the arguments from both sides. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the central agencies, argued against granting bail, citing the ongoing investigation and the evidence collected so far. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sisodia, countered this by highlighting the delay in the trial and the need to uphold his client’s right to personal liberty.
During the hearing, the central agencies, including the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), presented their findings, alleging a significant bribery scandal involving the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). According to ASG Raju, a Rs 100 crore bribe was allegedly demanded by the AAP to fund its campaign in the Goa elections, out of which Rs 45 crore had been traced by investigators. Raju emphasized that there was substantial digital evidence to support these claims and that Sisodia, who was in charge of the Excise Department of the Delhi government, was directly implicated. The ASG further alleged that Sisodia had engineered emails and directed certain interns to write emails as part of this orchestrated scam.
In defense, Singhvi argued that Sisodia had already been in custody for 17 months, which constituted an unreasonable delay in the legal proceedings. He contended that this delay was grounds for granting bail, particularly since the trial had not yet commenced. Singhvi also appealed for interim bail on humanitarian grounds, citing the severe medical condition of Sisodia’s wife, who he described as being “virtually like a vegetable.” Despite these arguments, Sisodia had previously been denied bail by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court.
The case has seen multiple legal battles over the past several months. On April 30, Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi refused to grant bail to Sisodia, marking the second time his plea for regular bail was denied. In her ruling, Judge Baweja noted that the delays in the case proceedings were largely due to actions attributable to Sisodia himself, dismissing his claims of undue delay. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court, which also denied bail to Sisodia, stating that he failed to pass the triple test for the grant of bail in corruption cases and did not meet the twin conditions required under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Sisodia’s legal team then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, filing special leave petitions challenging the denial of bail. Last month, the Supreme Court had disposed of Sisodia’s pleas for bail in the corruption and money laundering cases after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, gave an undertaking that the final charge sheet in the liquor policy case would be filed by July 3. Despite this, Sisodia remained in judicial custody, with extensions being granted by the lower courts. Most recently, his judicial custody was extended until August 9 in the corruption case and August 13 in the money laundering case, with Sisodia appearing via video conferencing from Tihar Jail.
The excise policy case itself is rooted in allegations of corruption and financial misconduct in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi government’s liquor policy. The policy, which was introduced under the AAP government, aimed to streamline the distribution and sale of liquor in the capital. However, it soon came under scrutiny after allegations emerged that the policy was manipulated to favor certain private companies in exchange for kickbacks. The CBI and ED launched investigations, which led to the arrest of several individuals, including Sisodia, who was the Deputy Chief Minister at the time.
The case has had significant political ramifications, with the AAP leadership accusing the central government of using investigative agencies to target its leaders. Sisodia’s arrest and prolonged detention have been cited as examples of political vendetta by the AAP, which has consistently denied any wrongdoing. The party has maintained that the liquor policy was implemented transparently and that the allegations are baseless and politically motivated.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Sisodia marks a critical juncture in the case. While the central agencies continue to pursue their investigation, the ruling underscores the importance of upholding fundamental rights and ensuring that the legal process is not unduly delayed. The emphasis on the right to a speedy trial is particularly significant in this context, as it reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against prolonged and unjustified detention.
The ruling also brings into focus the broader issue of pre-trial detention in India, where accused individuals often spend extended periods in jail without being formally convicted. This practice has been criticized by legal experts and human rights organizations, who argue that it undermines the presumption of innocence and can lead to severe personal and social consequences for those detained. The Supreme Court’s remarks in the Sisodia case may, therefore, have broader implications for how such cases are handled in the future.
As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the trial will proceed and what impact it will have on the political landscape in Delhi and beyond. For now, the granting of bail to Manish Sisodia is a significant development, one that highlights the delicate balance between the need for thorough investigations and the protection of individual rights.