A bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud, and Justice PS Narasimha has agreed to adjudicate on the matter at 3:50 pm today, subsequent to its reference earlier in the day by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi.
The case at hand involves a petition filed by the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who is challenging his apprehension by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding his alleged involvement in the Delhi Excise Policy scam.
The Honorable Court is presently hearing the case, and the Delhi court had remanded Sisodia to CBI custody until March 4, 2023, on Monday, following his arrest on Sunday night for purportedly being involved in the 2021 Excise Policy.
The CBI had taken Sisodia into custody after conducting an inquiry that lasted almost eight hours.
Sisodia was apprehended by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following an interrogation lasting approximately eight hours. The allegations levelled against Sisodia and other members of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) suggest that they accepted bribes in exchange for awarding liquor licenses to particular traders.
Based on a report by the Delhi Chief Secretary, the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena recommended a CBI investigation, resulting in both the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI registering cases linked to the purported scam. The report posited that the Deputy Chief Minister flouted statutory provisions and announced a policy with significant financial consequences.
Even though Sisodia was not named in the CBI’s chargesheet, the inquiry into him and some other individuals remains ongoing. The AAP has rejected the accusations and affirmed Sisodia’s innocence.
CJI stated that Sisodia has full remedy in the form of bail before High Court under Section 482. He further added, Vinod Dua and Arnab Goswami cases were innately different.
Singhvi on behest of Sisodia contended that, since the offence is punishable with the imprisonment of 7 years and also the petitioner is summoned only twice after the FIR registered make this arrest illegal. He also said, that landmark judgment Arnesh Kumar clearly stated guidelines to ensure before the arrest.
After these exchanges of arguments, CJI said, “Petitioner has efficacious alternate remedies. we are not inclined to entertain this under Article 32.