Manish Sisodia bail case: Can courts examine Cabinet notes and why is AAP not an accused? Supreme Court to ED

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked whether courts can examine notes which are part of cabinet meetings and whether such cabinet notes enjoy the same kind of immunity that parliamentary proceedings enjoy. .The Court posed the question to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju who was representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the bail pleas filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia who is in judicial custody in connection with money laundering and corruption cases related to Delhi excise policy scam."Mr (ASG SV) Raju, we would like you to address us, and there are judgments of this court, to what extent cabinet notes are triable in court of law. I believe there are specific constitution bench judgments barring us from examining cabinet notes. I do not know if it applies to Delhi, because it is a Union Territory. Though they have not raised it. Like the issue of how we cannot get into what is said in Parliament, now that has been referred to a larger bench," the bench said.A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti also said that since Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is alleged to be the beneficiary of the money laundering, why the political party or its office bearers have not been made an accused to the case."A political party is said to be the beneficiary of this, but they are not an accused or impleaded. How do you answer that," the Court asked.The hearing will continue on Thursday.Sisodia, who is embroiled in the excise policy scam case, has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order denying him bail in the cases registered against him by the CBI and the ED. .The scam allegedly involves officials of the Delhi government conniving to grant liquor licenses to certain traders in exchange for bribes.The central agency's case is that the excise policy was tweaked and the profit margins changed to benefit certain traders and kickbacks were received in exchange for the same.The ED and the CBI registered cases in relation to the alleged scam after Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena recommended a CBI probe based on a report by the Delhi Chief Secretary. The report claimed that Sisodia violated statutory provisions and notified a policy that had significant financial implications.Although Sisodia was not named in the CBI's chargesheet initially, the CBI filed an additional chargesheet later arraying him as an accused in the case.It is Sisodia's stance that the policy and the changes made in it were approved by the LG and that CBI is now going after the policy decisions of an elected government.According to Sisodia, no money has been traced to him and that the agencies are re-evaluating a liquor policy that was formulated by the elected government and approved by the LG of Delhi. The Delhi High Court had, on July 3, denied bail to Sisodia in the ED case. On May 30, it had rejected Sisodia's bail plea in the CBI case in relation to the same scam, leading to the instant petitions.The top court had in July issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the matter..During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing Sisodia told the Court that Sisodia satisfies all conditions for grant of bail since he is not a flight risk and will not threaten any witnesses."No flight risk, that is out of the question. No chance of threatening witnesses. Please see the triple test in Chidambaram," it was submitted. He further contended that the excise policy in question was not the decision of an individual minister but an institutional decision spread over a period of time. "Whole thing of excise policy was a multilateral institutional decision spread over a period of time. Not an individual decision," Singhvi said.He further said that the new policy would have increased the revenue for government."Earlier because of cartelisation they were getting 65% profits. We offered world class experience with CCTV and testing and it leads to huge revenues. We did give a better deal to them but to increase revenue and we increased license prices," it was submitted..He also highlighted the delay in starting the enquiry and claimed that the same happened nearly a year after the policy came into place."There was open consultation on website etc. Nobody starts any enquiry (then) nothing. On May 23, 2022 a new LG is appointed. New LG in July 2022 (writes) letter alleging irregularities. We are one year down. Matter referred to CBI. 17th August CBI FIR (is lodged), 22nd August the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is registered. Arrested for close to 8 months, no money trail found," Singhvi said.Unfortunately there are some high value targets in politics who are not supposed to get bail, the Senior Counsel alleged..Regarding the allegation that Sisodia destroyed his earlier mobile phones, Singhvi said that the minister changes his phone every year."Now on destruction of phones, I have been changing my phone every year. These are all hard truths. One (changed) just before the FIR," it was submitted.The new policy "There is no revenue loss, in first year slight increase. Wrong tests applied to arrest. We completely stopped cartelisation," Singhvi underlined."Increase in license fee subsumed the excise duty," the Court asked."For retailers, yes," replied Singhvi.."Check whether the new license fees had subsumed the VAT also. Was there open bidding for wholesalers also? And could you sell it at lower than 12% (premium) or? MRP is always fixed but we are asking you plainly, was it there or.. just check it up factually," the Court told Singhvi..[Live Updates from hearing below]