January 06, 2026 06:45 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
TMC moves Supreme Court against ECI over SIR, alleges ‘WhatsApp Commission’ in voter revision | Madurai HC shocks DMK! Hilltop Karthigai Deepam allowed, court slams ‘unnecessary politicisation’ – Hindus celebrate big victory! | Suresh Kalmadi, ex-Union Minister and controversial Commonwealth Games chief, passes away at 81 | Bangladesh bans IPL telecast after KKR drops Mustafizur Rahman | ‘Qualitatively different’: Supreme Court shuts bail door on Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in Delhi riots case | ‘Modi is a good guy,’ says Trump — then comes the tariff threat over Russian oil | Oil stocks surge after US strike on Venezuela — ONGC, RIL in sharp focus | ‘Epicentre of misgovernance’: Rahul Gandhi blasts Madhya Pradesh govt over deadly water contamination | After Mamdani's letter, 8 US lawmakers push 'fair trial' for Umar Khalid amid UAPA case | ‘Bad neighbours’: Jaishankar shreds Pakistan, defends India’s right to act against cross-border terror
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.