Delhi Liquor Policy Case | Supreme Court To Hear On March 5 AAP MP Sanjay Singh's Plea Against Arrest By Enforcement Directorate

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing Singh's plea against a Delhi High Court order refusing to set aside his arrest. The top court issued notice in his special leave petition in November last year.

On the last occasion, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the embattled legislator, questioned Singh's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate, arguing that it was void ab initio. Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which lays down the requirements for a valid and lawful arrest under the anti-money laundering legislation, provides for inbuilt safeguards against the arbitrary use of the power, he argued. These include the mandate to record reasons in writing for the belief regarding the involvement of the person in an offence of money laundering and to inform the person being arrested of the grounds of their arrest.

Notably, the bench, while agreeing to issue notice, advised him to a file for regular bail. The court pointed out that a bail application would not preclude him from pursuing a legal remedy in the Supreme Court for a purported violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also reasoned that the jurisdiction of a court while granting bail was broader than that related to Section 167(2) CrPC.

Last month, the Aam Aadmi Party MP moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the money laundering case and a bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice in his application, seeking the Enforcement Directorate's response.

During today's hearing in the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju informed the bench that oral arguments have also been concluded and the high court's verdict reserved. The law officer then said, "Your Lordships had asked them to apply for regular bail. They have applied and the hearing has taken place. The order may come out in a couple of days. So the hearing of this petition may be adjourned for a week."

Taking note of this submission, Justice Khanna pronounced, "Re-list on March 5, 2024."

Singhvi added at the end, "My Lords had said to also file for regular bail, saying that it will not be held against me when I come for this..."

"No no, we will not. Dr Singhvi, I remember," Justice Khanna assured the senior counsel, before adjourning the proceedings. 

Background

The origin of the controversy is the excise policy framed by the Government of the National Capital of Delhi to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the policy. This policy – which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital – was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of the public exchequer and smacked of corruption, the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation have claimed. They have alleged that there was a coordinated conspiracy to provide extraordinary profit margins to wholesalers, led by individuals including Vijay Nair acting on behalf of Manish Sisodia, former deputy chief minister of Delhi and a prominent leader of the Aam Aadmi Party. The investigations are currently underway and have led to the arrest of Sisodia and others.

Sanjay Singh, currently in judicial custody, was arrested by the ED on October 4 following searches at his residence in Delhi. The central agency alleges that an employee of businessman Dinesh Arora delivered Rs. 2 crores to Singh's house on two occasions. Singh's arrest followed accusations made by Arora, who later turned approver in both the ED and CBI cases.

Last month, the Delhi High Court rejected his petition challenging his arrest and remand in connection with the money laundering case linked to the liquor policy scam. Despite Singh's claim that the case was politically motivated, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasised that court cannot interfere with the work of the Enforcement Directorate, a premier investigative agency, in the absence of substantial evidence supporting such allegations. Noting that the investigation was incomplete, the single judge also observed that the petition was premature.

“Courts are best left untouched by such influences and are only bound by the oath,” stated Justice Sharma. The court asserted that Singh, despite being a political figure, should be treated on par with any other accused in a criminal case. It highlighted that while every individual has the right to protect their public image, this right should not impede the state's right to investigate a crime.

Case Details

Sanjay Singh v. Union of India & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14510 of 2023