Join Our WhatsApp Group:
https://linktr.ee/sujitnair
In this editorial episode, Mr. Sujit Nair discusses the recent statements made by the Supreme Court of India in the case involving Manish Sisodia. During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised significant questions about the strength of the case being pursued by investigating agencies, specifically in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case.
The Supreme Court's remarks came while considering the bail pleas of AAP leader Manish Sisodia, who is facing charges in a money laundering case and a corruption case linked to an alleged liquor policy scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) emphasized its commitment to bringing those responsible for the liquor policy irregularities to justice, and it had recently arrested AAP MP Sanjay Singh on accusations of receiving substantial kickbacks from an accused-turned-approver named Dinesh Arora.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Manish Sisodia, argued that the ED's interest in implicating AAP in the case was prompted by a query raised by the Supreme Court itself. However, the court clarified that its query was solely a legal inquiry and not intended to implicate anyone.
Regarding the contentious Delhi excise policy, the Supreme Court questioned whether it could be legally challenged in the manner presented. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the policy was designed to favor specific individuals and presented WhatsApp messages as evidence. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court expressed doubts about the admissibility of these messages.
The ED also mentioned that the accused in the excise policy case had communicated using the Signal app, which is difficult to trace, complicating the investigation further. Throughout the proceedings, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to pose tough questions to the investigating agencies.
Earlier, sources had revealed that the ED was considering making AAP a defendant in the excise policy case. This decision came after a previous court hearing where the court had questioned why the party, which was alleged to have benefited from the policy, had not been implicated in the case.
The ED has alleged that AAP used Rs 100 crore received as kickbacks from various stakeholders for its campaign in the 2022 Goa Assembly elections.
#SupremeCourt #ManishSisodia #SanjaySingh #AAP #SatyendraJain #AamAadmiParty #ArvindKejriwal #DelhiLiquorPolicy #ED #CBI #SupremeCourtOfIndia #DelhiGovernment #HWNews #SujitNair
https://linktr.ee/sujitnair
In this editorial episode, Mr. Sujit Nair discusses the recent statements made by the Supreme Court of India in the case involving Manish Sisodia. During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised significant questions about the strength of the case being pursued by investigating agencies, specifically in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case.
The Supreme Court's remarks came while considering the bail pleas of AAP leader Manish Sisodia, who is facing charges in a money laundering case and a corruption case linked to an alleged liquor policy scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) emphasized its commitment to bringing those responsible for the liquor policy irregularities to justice, and it had recently arrested AAP MP Sanjay Singh on accusations of receiving substantial kickbacks from an accused-turned-approver named Dinesh Arora.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Manish Sisodia, argued that the ED's interest in implicating AAP in the case was prompted by a query raised by the Supreme Court itself. However, the court clarified that its query was solely a legal inquiry and not intended to implicate anyone.
Regarding the contentious Delhi excise policy, the Supreme Court questioned whether it could be legally challenged in the manner presented. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the policy was designed to favor specific individuals and presented WhatsApp messages as evidence. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court expressed doubts about the admissibility of these messages.
The ED also mentioned that the accused in the excise policy case had communicated using the Signal app, which is difficult to trace, complicating the investigation further. Throughout the proceedings, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to pose tough questions to the investigating agencies.
Earlier, sources had revealed that the ED was considering making AAP a defendant in the excise policy case. This decision came after a previous court hearing where the court had questioned why the party, which was alleged to have benefited from the policy, had not been implicated in the case.
The ED has alleged that AAP used Rs 100 crore received as kickbacks from various stakeholders for its campaign in the 2022 Goa Assembly elections.
#SupremeCourt #ManishSisodia #SanjaySingh #AAP #SatyendraJain #AamAadmiParty #ArvindKejriwal #DelhiLiquorPolicy #ED #CBI #SupremeCourtOfIndia #DelhiGovernment #HWNews #SujitNair
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 Namaskar. Welcome to another episode of Editorial.
00:03 So the Supreme Court has said that no money has come to Manish Sishodiya. How
00:08 will you bring him under money laundering? This is what the Supreme Court said.
00:13 You see, the topic that I want to talk tonight, my question tonight is, as a common man,
00:20 whenever I think my rights are being taken away from me, whenever I think I am being bullied,
00:27 whenever I think that I am entrapped by some forces which are bigger than me,
00:34 I run to the Supreme Court. I run to the courts. I run to judiciary.
00:39 This is what I do. And I have this hope that, you know, these courts are going to protect me.
00:45 By the looks of it, the courts are trying to do their job.
00:52 But what it looks like is that the power of the court or the emphasis given on verdicts
01:00 are somehow growing lesser and lesser, which means that somehow the dispensation, the government,
01:10 the administration doesn't really fear the courts or fear the court's verdict or what
01:20 consequences that they may face if they go against the verdict of the court.
01:24 This is what it looks like. I am going to talk to you about Manish Sishodiya's case. That's one.
01:30 I am going to talk to you about some other, few other cases too. And let's discuss whether
01:36 are courts being undermined. Let's get right into the show.
01:40 Okay, now, like I said, the court said that no money has come to Manish Sishodiya. How will you
01:49 bring him under money laundering? This is what Supreme Court asked Enforcement Directorate.
01:55 The Supreme Court put forth a barrage of questions towards investigative agencies. This unfolded
02:02 during the hearing presided over by the bench comprising of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and S. V. N.
02:09 Bhatti. You know, what is interesting are the questions that the court asked.
02:18 Because I don't know, as a layman, as a layman, I am now scared that can this central agency just
02:26 pick you up, put you behind bars and then figure out, aage ka dekhta hai, hoga dekhega. Because
02:33 the questions that the court asked, and I want you to hear this, in Manish Sishodiya's case,
02:38 the questions that the court asked are as follows. The first question they say,
02:43 but you say that policy decisions are motivated for personal benefits. So, will it mean that
02:50 you are challenging the policy decision? The court says, baba, you are saying that Sishodiya
02:54 has taken policy decision because of personal motivation. Okay, so are you saying therefore,
02:59 the decisions he took were wrong? Do you have an answer? If you are saying that he has personal
03:07 decisions, personal motivation ke liye policy decision liya tha, that means the policy decision
03:11 he took was wrong. Further on, the court goes on to ask that how do you say that kickback was given?
03:19 That's entirely on the basis of the approver statement. The approver, whose name is Dinesh
03:25 Arora, his statement, he says, I am approver. If I am approver, what happens? I get leniency.
03:33 So, I say he took money. This man took money. So, are you just basing your entire case on the
03:38 fact that approver said this man took money? I am not asking this. Supreme Court is asking this.
03:43 And what I am wondering and what I am wondering tonight is,
03:47 is it this easy for a central agency to pick up a deputy chief minister of a state and put him
03:53 behind bars? It is like saying that, laan do andar hai, fir figure out karte hai kya karna hai.
03:58 Because these questions are absolutely, I couldn't believe that I was reading this.
04:05 I will tell you something more. Now, let me tell you the answer that the Assistant Solicitor General
04:10 Mr. Raju gave to the court. Mr. Raju said that Indo Spirit was not getting the wholesale.
04:17 There were some complaints against the partners of Indo Spirit, etc. So, they were not eligible
04:21 for to get the wholesale. Manish Sisodia intervened and said that immediately all
04:27 those complaints be removed. There is a Mahadev Liquor wholesaler. He was pressurized to walk out.
04:34 They were closed without any show cause notice. The moment they gave up the license,
04:38 all those things were cleared. This is what the Solicitor General said,
04:45 Associate Solicitor General said. Now, we have seen this kind of behavior in every government,
04:50 by the way. In a lot of places, we have seen this kind of governance. A, secondly, what is all this?
04:55 These are all, are these circumstantial evidence? Are these real evidence? Or are these like the
05:01 court says? These are just what somebody said, somebody's statement. What are these?
05:06 The court went on to ask, as per your case, no money has come to Manish Sisodia. You are saying,
05:14 the court says that you made him shut down, you made him start, you gave him license, you gave
05:19 him to get out of the room and all that. All that you are saying, but not a rupee, according to your
05:25 statement, your evidence is not a rupee has gone to Manish Sisodia. Why is he doing it?
05:29 Why is he doing it then? The court says, as per your case, no money has come to Manish Sisodia.
05:35 So, how did the money flow from liquor group? You have taken two figures, 100 crores and 30 crores.
05:42 Who paid them this? There can be some people paying the money, not necessarily collected to
05:47 liquor. They are saying that who paid these monies? How are you connecting them to the liquor trade?
05:54 I mean, there is nothing, there is no evidence according to the court. The court says,
06:00 I am not seeing any evidence. The court went on to say that where is the proof that Dinesh Arora,
06:06 this is the approver, which I told you about, himself is the recipient. Where is the evidence?
06:11 Except for the statement of Dinesh Arora, is there any other evidence again and again?
06:17 My question to you is, you have taken a deputy chief minister in custody from February 26, 2023.
06:24 Today we are on 6th of October, 2023. From February to October, a deputy chief minister,
06:31 Manish Sisodia is behind bars. And today the court is asking that, yesterday the court is asking,
06:38 what is the evidence you have? You don't have evidence. So, what was he doing in the past so many months?
06:43 What was he doing sitting in the behind the bars? When you are arresting a deputy chief minister,
06:50 at least put the evidence in place, put everything in place and then go and arrest him and take him.
06:54 So, this forces us to think. This forces us to think. I am not saying that therefore what I am
07:03 saying is correct. But this forces us to think, was the arrest necessary? If it was not, then what
07:10 was the reason behind arrest? Was the reason behind this arrest actually to stop corruption
07:17 or was the reason behind arrest politically motivated? This is the simple question that I
07:23 asked tonight. And why I am saying that we are undermining our courts is because,
07:28 imagine a Supreme Court judge is asking these simple questions, "Ki evidence kaha hai bhai?"
07:36 Somebody says so that's it. Bas, you are putting the guy in behind bars.
07:40 The Supreme Court asking this kind of questions in a democracy, a robust democracy like India,
07:48 where we actually take pride in the way we conduct ourselves at least legally, judicially.
07:53 This is the kind of question that is asking. Let me go further.
08:00 The court further asks that regarding the allegation of PMLA Act, Justice Khanna stated
08:07 that Manish Sisodia is not involved in all this. Vijay Nair is there but Manish Sisodia
08:14 is not in this part. How will you bring him under the money laundering act? The money is not going
08:21 to him. In case if it's a company with whom he is involved, then we have a vicacious liability.
08:28 Otherwise, the prosecution falters. Money laundering is entirely different offense.
08:33 We have to show that he is in the possession of that property. You will have to go to the
08:41 exact wordings of the section and show how will you bring him in. He has not got the possession,
08:48 somebody else has. It's not acquisition by him. It's acquisition by someone else.
08:54 Use is by someone else. Projecting is by someone else. Generation is not part of it.
09:01 Concealment is part of it. Possibly, you can bring it under concealment. I don't know.
09:08 That's why I said abetment is separate. Vicacious liability is separate. Principal offender
09:16 may be someone separate. See, the court says that,
09:21 "Yaar, I don't understand. He has not got the money. He has not concealed anyone. He is not
09:26 concealed anything. He is not in possession of anything. How can you blame him? It is all somebody
09:31 else who is in possession, who is concealed and all of that. The court says if somebody else,
09:35 then how are you dragging this man in? Which means that what I understand as a layman is that,
09:41 "Bhai, there has been something, there has been wrongdoing possible. I don't know that that's
09:45 what the court says that somebody else has the possession, somebody else took the money. If
09:48 that is the case, there has been wrongdoing. But then, is it that the agencies deliberately wanted
09:56 to get Sisodia into the picture? Drag him into the picture, get him there, get him arrested?
10:00 And after six months, you are asking February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September,
10:05 October. After nine months, asking him that, "Bhai, the court says, "Kidhar hai? He didn't
10:10 get the money. He didn't conceal anything. He has possessed nothing. Problem kya hai?
10:14 How can you blame him?" I mean, this to me sounds strange, like I told you. Let me tell you,
10:22 take you further. When you give bribe, you are involved in activity connected to the proceeds
10:27 of crime. Suppose, let's assume, ultimate no money is passed. Will PMLA trigger? What triggers in
10:35 PMLA is proceeds of crime. PMLA will be triggered. After proceeds of crime are given or paid,
10:42 you have to connect the person concerned with the proceeds of crime directly or indirectly.
10:47 Abetment, it may be. But as a principal offender, it will be a different situation altogether.
10:54 Court went on to say, "Baba, you have to prove the person not money or not here from proceeds of
11:00 crime. I mean, abetment, abetment, dheeka hai, you can tell them. But to frame the man? See,
11:07 I am not here to defend Manish Sisodia. I am not here to tell you whether Manish Sisodia had done
11:12 it, Manish Sisodia didn't do it. I am here as a citizen of this country and as a concerned citizen
11:19 of this country. If Manish Sisodia and I have kept quiet on this topic for all this while,
11:23 I have not uttered a word on this topic. You know why the reason I didn't utter a word on
11:27 this topic? I didn't know. I don't know. I don't want to say that somebody is doing something
11:32 wrong or somebody is doing something right till such time that I see something. Today,
11:35 after seeing the deliberation of the court, my God, I am wondering whether if Manish Sisodia
11:44 has done it and they are still trying to prove it or they are not trying to, they are not able
11:48 to prove it exactly the way the court wants, dheeka hai. But if he is not and this is a political
11:53 arrest, my God, what you are technically doing is you are using a central agency, you are using the
11:59 judiciary, you are using the law to completely crush a party, crush a party called AAP because
12:07 everybody in AAP is inside. So, AAP can have a national conference inside the jail because there
12:12 are more people inside the jail than outside. Now, Sanjay Singh also has been arrested.
12:17 Now, will the court say same thing about Sanjay Singh, saying that you have no evidence?
12:23 So, law is good. But if you are using law, you are using enforcement agencies as
12:29 to crush a political party and to this extent, that party is almost finished.
12:34 And the best thing is, unlike other parties like NCP and Shiv Sena and all that,
12:40 there are no people who jumped that party to BJP, jumped from that party to BJP. Very few,
12:44 Kapil Mishra and all are different. Chalo, that was long back. But there are no office bearers
12:49 or senior leaders that are jumping parties to Bharatiya Janata Party even after being arrested.
12:55 So, because maybe they are so loyal to their party, is this the second route that either you
13:02 jump to me or sit inside prison? Sit inside prison, Sanjay Singh, because you couldn't jump to me.
13:10 Is that the way it is? I am just asking because that's what it's looking like.
13:15 And that's this, from where I sit and watch, see this, I see this as a red flag to our democracy.
13:22 This is not the way it should be going. That's the point I wanted to make and also the same,
13:29 I just want to talk about Maharashtra for two minutes more. And while observing that the
13:36 speaker has to abide by the dignity of Supreme Court, a bench headed by the Chief Justice D.Y.
13:43 Chandrachud on Monday disapproved the delay of Maharashtra Assembly Speaker in deciding the
13:47 qualification plea pending against MLAs belonging to Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's faction.
13:52 You see, the court had given the rights to decide regarding the suspension of Eknath
13:59 Shinde faction and their MLAs. Court had given, asked the speaker to take a decision on that.
14:06 And court had given a reasonable time. Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India had given that
14:13 reasonable time to a speaker. The speaker sat on it. Speaker didn't take any steps.
14:20 Wasn't that, forget about the Supreme Court, wasn't that cheating the democracy?
14:26 He is supposed to be an unbiased decision maker here. He is supposed to act judge, unbiased,
14:33 a political. Did he do that? Quest number one. Quest number two, the Supreme Court had to say,
14:42 abide by the dignity of the Supreme Court. Abide by the dignity of the Supreme Court.
14:48 Abide by our dignity is what the Supreme Court is pleading, literally. To my layman's mind,
14:55 this is what it sounded to me. Why is the speaker not taking decision? Is it because it will harm
15:02 him politically? It will harm his political party? If that's the case, then how does he call himself
15:06 a speaker? How does he call himself a speaker? How can he be apolitical? So, how is it wrong when
15:12 people say, "Oh, my mic is off." Opposition says, "They don't let me speak. My mic is off." How are
15:16 they wrong? Aren't these all adding, is my question. And if these are all adding, then where are we
15:25 headed to? That's the point I wanted to make tonight. Till I see you next time, that's tomorrow
15:31 at 10. Namaskar.
15:37 (Music)