Delhi minister Atishi on Thursday said if the ED now makes the Aam Aadmi Party an accused in the alleged liquor case, then it proves that they found nothing against Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. The statement comes a day after the Supreme Court asked the ED to explain why the Aam Aadmi Party is not named as accused in the liquor policy case. Following this, the ED reportedly moved towards the direction of naming AAP as an accused in the case. To this, Atishi said, “If after 15 months of investigation, the ED now moves to name AAP as an accused, it means only one thing. They don’t have any evidence against either Manish Sisodia or Sanjay Singh.”

“This will only show their desperation to somehow further their lies. I challenge the BJP again to show evidence of even ₹1 against Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. What did you find at Sanjay Singh’s place? Did you find gold biscuits? Till now, they have not been able to place any evidence. And they won’t in the coming days either,” Atishi said.

The Supreme Court asked ED if AAP is the main beneficiary of the alleged irregularity in the Delhi excise policy 2021-22, then why it was not named as an accused in the case. Manish Sisodia was arrested in February this year in connection with this scam. On Wednesday, AAP MP Sanjay Singh was arrested for the same, while the party continued to deny all allegations.

What the Supreme Court said on naming AAP as accused in the alleged liquor scam

“We need clarity on this issue that as far as the money laundering offence is concerned, he (Sisodia) is named as one of the beneficiaries. Your whole case is that the political party is said to have benefitted from this. But they are not accused. How do you answer that?” a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti said.

The observation was made by the top court as it was hearing appeals by Manish Sisodia in the liquor case.

This aspect, however, was not argued by Sisodia and came from the bench. “He (Sisodia) has not raised this point. We have put it directly to you. Whatever it is, you answer that tomorrow,” the bench said.