"Can Courts Examine Cabinet Notes Like Parliamentary Proceedings?" Asks Supreme Court in Sisodia Bail Plea

The Supreme Court has raised a significant question concerning examining cabinet notes, asking whether they enjoy the same immunity as parliamentary proceedings. The query came during the hearing of the bail pleas filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia, who is facing money laundering and corruption charges in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam.

The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti also questioned why the political party or its office bearers, alleged to be beneficiaries of the money laundering, were not named as accused in the case.

Sisodia moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court denied him bail in cases filed by the CBI and the ED related to the excise policy scam involving alleged collusion to grant liquor licenses to traders in exchange for bribes.

The ED and CBI registered cases based on a report by the Delhi Chief Secretary, which claimed Sisodia violated statutory provisions by notifying a policy with significant financial implications.

Sisodia argues that the Delhi Lieutenant Governor approved the policy and that the agencies are targeting the policy decisions of an elected government. He also stated that no money had been traced to him.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Sisodia, argued that Sisodia meets all bail conditions and highlighted that the excise policy was an institutional decision, not an individual one.

The hearing will continue, with the Court asking to verify certain facts related to the policy.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT University