August 20, 2026 09:35 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Vijay govt calls for action to stop students, youth from joining CJP, Left protests | Kolkata hotel fire kills 9: Bengal Minister Agnimitra Paul targets ex-TMC govt, CESC over licences | Kolkata hotel fire: 9 Bangladeshi nationals, including women and a child, die in massive blaze | Tarun Tejpal faces life term? Goa govt moves Supreme Court after 2013 rape conviction | Supreme Court rejects ‘less painful’ death penalty plea, but leaves door open for future change | ‘Vulgarity and disgust’: DMK attacks Vijay over Trisha salute at I-Day event | ‘Take Gyanesh Kumar to the US’: Congress mocks Trump over praise for India’s voter ID system | Big relief for Imran Khan: Pakistan Supreme Court orders hospital transfer amid health fears | Trump praises India’s voter ID system, pushes SAVE America Act | Trump's shock threat to bomb Oman: US President warns ally over Iran deal and Hormuz crisis
Manish Sisodia
Photo Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

Delhi liquor scam: SC seeks proof against Manish Sisodia in money laundering case; hurls tough questions at ED, CBI

| @indiablooms | Oct 06, 2023, at 06:49 am

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two bail petitions filed by former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in the alleged money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate linked to Delhi liquor policy scam, media reports said.

The Supreme Court said that the Enforcement Directorate court could not implicate Manish Sisodia in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi liquor scam, according to the reports.

The court said that Vijay Nair, the AAP communication chief and businessman, had involvement, but the probe agency has not been able to prove Manish Sisodia’s connection so far.

The court questioned how he could be brought under the Money Laundering Act since the money was not directed towards him, according to the media reports.

The apex court stated that if he was associated with a company, vicarious liability could be considered. Otherwise, the prosecution's case weakened. The court said that money laundering formed a distinct offence.

The court emphasized the need for the probe agency to establish a clear chain of financial transactions. It acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, given the covert nature of such activities, but stressed the importance of the agency's expertise in this matter.

The court raised questions about the specified amounts of Rs100 crore and Rs 30 crore, asking who provided these sums to the accused. It pointed out that multiple people could have made such payments, without direct links to the liquor policy.

The court sought the evidence supporting the allegations.

It noted that aside from Dinesh Arora's statement, there seemed to be a lack of additional corroborative evidence, casting a shadow over the completeness of the established chain.

The court said that policy changes, even if flawed, would not amount to a crime unless there was an element of financial offense.

It underscored that it was the involvement of money that transformed it into an offence.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.