NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea by Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia’s plea challenging his arrest by CBI in the multi-crore scam of the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.
Considering that one of the allegations against him was also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha noted that Sisodia has efficacious alternate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR under section 482 CrPC and can also apply for bail in the Delhi High Court.
Justice PS Narasimha said that the court entertaining the plea at this stage would set a “wrong precedent.” “It will set a very wrong precedent. Just because an incident happens in Delhi doesn’t mean we are approached,” Justice PS Narasimha remarked.
The court in their order said, “Petitioner has efficacious alternate remedies under CrPC. We are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32 (the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred) at this stage."
Sisodia’s plea was mentioned before the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi in the morning. Although the bench initially expressed reluctance, it agreed to list the plea at 3:50 PM today.
“You have your remedies before the HC under section 482 CrPC. Of course, we have the power. The matter the other day we entertained (Congress leader Pawan Khera’s plea) was for the clubbing of FIRs. We’ll take it up after the mentioning at the end of the board,” the CJI had remarked.
When the hearing had begun around 3:50 PM, the CJI while expressing his reluctance to entertain the same, said that Sisodia already has full remedy. “You’re invoking Article 32 to challenge the FIR. Here you have a full remedy, bail before competent court and 482 CrPC before Delhi High Court,” the CJI said.
Terming Sisodia’s arrest as illegal, AM Singhvi while urging the bench to accede to his relief said that the FIR was of 2022 and that Sisodia was called only twice. He also added that Sisodia was neither a flight risk and had held 18 portfolios in the government.
Laying emphasis on the fact that power to arrest does not mean compulsion to arrest, Singhvi further added, “The allegation is that there was a policy decision taken where he was one rung out of the seven including the Delhi Lieutenant Governor. Power of arrest does not mean compulsion to arrest. 'You are not cooperating and thus I must arrest you'... this is what is happening.”
The court while acceding to the CBI's request had observed that although Sisodia had joined the investigation of this case on two earlier occasions, he failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions that were put to him during his examination and interrogation.
The court further noted that thus he had failed for giving a legitimate explanation with regard to the incriminating evidence which had allegedly surfaced against him in the investigation conducted so far.
The court had also observed, “It is true that Sisodia cannot be expected to make self-incriminating statements, but the interests of justice and of a fair investigation require that he should come up with some legitimate answers to the questions which are being put to him by the Investigating Officer.”
The CBI on Sunday evening arrested Sisodia in connection with alleged corruption in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped liquor policy for 2021-22.
The AAP leader, accused number one in the CBI FIR, was earlier questioned on October 17, a month before the agency filed its charge sheet on November 25.
The CBI had not named Sisodia in the charge sheet as the central probe agency kept the probe open against him and other suspects and accused, they said.
Sisodia was arrested after his deposition appeared incoherent with respect to the evidence and information gathered by the agency during the preliminary probe and statements of witnesses and accused (including government officials) who deposed in the case so far. In a statement issued post his arrest, the CBI claimed, “He gave evasive replies and did not co-operate the investigation despite being confronted with evidence to the contrary.”
(With inputs from online desk)