The Supreme Court recently refused bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia, a move that has baffled many due to the allegedly conflicting grounds stated in the verdict. A lawyer joked that the conversations that led to the verdict were so disjointed that they couldn't have been written by the same person. The contested judgment involves several legal issues and factors, making it critical to determine if the denial of bail in this case is justified. When the essential arguments of the judgment are examined, it is not difficult to establish that Manish Sisodia deserves bail.
The court concedes that there are several inconsistencies in the case against Sisodia, such as the lack of evidence connecting him to the alleged wrongdoing and the fact that he cooperated with the investigation. As much respect as I have for the courts, I am disturbed by this move, which highlights even the highest court's capacity to make decisions that are contradictory.
Legal Complexity And Constitutional Questions
The judgment acknowledges that certain legal issues have been raised in the case, but are not discussed in detail. The most important question is whether specific sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should be read down in the light of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. This acknowledgement highlights the legal complexities involved in the case.
The Principle Of Bail Under The PMLA
The court emphasises a key concept that it is not essential to show the accused has not committed an offence in order to grant bail under the PMLA. Instead, a preliminary determination should be based on wide probability and the exercise of the court's discretion. This idea recognises that bail should not be rejected arbitrarily.
Lack Of Predicate Offense
Sisodia's advocates are arguing that the purported Rs. 2.2 crore bribe is not a predicate offense - a crime that is a component of a larger crime - and, as such, cannot be construed as proceeds of a crime. This refutes the grounds for Sisodia's arrest.
Doubtful Propositions And Lack Of Involvement
The verdict gives rise to doubts over the proposition that the mere obtaining of proceeds of crime constitutes "possession" or "use." It also raises questiond about the constructive possession of proceeds of a crime and implies that if the proceeds are under the command of a third person, Section 3 may not be invoked. Moreover, it is contended that the petitioner had no indirect or direct role whatsoever in the payment of Rs. 45 crores to AAP for the Goa elections. These reservations throw significant doubts on the veracity of the case against Sisodia.
Economic Offences And Fundamental Rights
The court expresses worry about Manish Sisodia's prolonged detention. It determines that he is not a flight risk and emphasises upon the basic right to a prompt trial. The court rightly separates economic offences from other serious crimes, stressing that trial delays, along with lengthy confinement, should be taken into account when interpreting the law.
Conditions For Future Bail Requests
The court observes that the respondents have claimed they would make proper efforts to complete the trial within 6-8 months. It allows Manish Sisodia to file a new bail plea if circumstances change or if the trial is stretched. This clause acknowledges that circumstances might change, and Sisodia ought not to be imprisoned indefinitely without an opportunity for reconsideration.
The Political Environment
It is critical to recognise the political context in which this case is playing out. Decisions involving prominent political individuals such as Sisodia are scrutinised under a microscope in a volatile political environment. Public opinion and the judicial process can be influenced by perceptions of political reasons. As a result, it is critical for the judicial system to be exceptionally diligent and impartial in addressing such instances.
Taking these major facts from the judgment as well as the principles of justice and fairness into account, it is clear that Manish Sisodia's argument for bail is persuasive. The questions raised on the legal basis for his imprisonment, along with the acknowledgement of his right to a fast trial and the need to avoid excessive punishment before a conviction, significantly bolster the case for bail.
The separation of the powers of the court and integrity are essential pillars in a democratic society that defends the rule of law and protects individuals' rights, especially in politically sensitive circumstances. Regardless of the political context. However, in high-stakes political battles, the idea of a "political witchhunt" can cast doubt on the judicial process.
Now, in terms of Sisodia's political suffering, he and his family are paying a hefty price for entering politics, especially considering the effect of their good work for Delhi's children. While I am certain that Sisodia and other AAP leaders have the fortitude to fight the major struggle, I am concerned that such outcomes would discourage our country's young from entering politics.
(Abhinandita Dayal Mathur is an Aam Aadmi Party leader)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.
