This story covers the recent ruling by a Delhi court discharging Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the excise policy case, and details the investigative agency’s immediate plan to appeal the decision.
On Friday, February 27, a Delhi court granted significant relief to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his former deputy Manish Sisodia, and Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha by discharging them in the highly publicized excise policy case.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order, effectively closing the case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. This ruling brings a pivotal juncture to a prolonged legal and political battle, discharging all 23 individuals who had been accused of corruption and conspiracy in the matter. The decision marks a major turning point in a controversy that has dominated national headlines for years.
The court systematically dismantled the chargesheet, concluding that the prosecution’s case failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. In a detailed assessment, the judge noted an absolute absence of any overarching conspiracy or criminal intent in the formulation and implementation of the now scrapped 2021 to 2022 Delhi excise policy.
According to the ruling, the investigating agency failed to provide any cogent evidence linking Kejriwal to the alleged irregularities. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no prima facie case against Sisodia or the other accused individuals, stating that the allegations presented by the investigators were built largely on conjecture rather than solid, corroborative proof.
In a robust critique of the investigative methods employed, the court severely questioned the heavy reliance on approver statements to construct a narrative of guilt. The judge articulated that the practice of granting a pardon to an accused person and subsequently using their statements to fill evidentiary gaps or implicate additional individuals is fundamentally flawed.
Such conduct, the court firmly observed, represents a grave violation of constitutional principles and cannot legitimately serve as the foundation for criminal prosecution. Taking the matter a step further, the judge ordered a departmental inquiry against specific officials who had inexplicably named a public servant as the primary accused in the case without any substantiating material on record.
The court also took significant issue with the specific terminology utilized throughout the voluminous chargesheet. It explicitly criticized the deliberate and repeated use of the term South Group by the investigating agency to describe a specific set of accused persons, seemingly based entirely on their regional origin or place of residence. The judge remarked that such nomenclature lacks any foundation in law, does not correspond to any legally recognizable classification, and remains entirely alien to the statutory framework that governs criminal liability. Orally, the judge even noted that such geographic labelling would be perceived as highly offensive in other jurisdictions.
Following the pronouncement of the verdict, the political ramifications were immediate. Arvind Kejriwal addressed his supporters, expressing a deep sense of vindication after spending months in custody. He firmly stated that the court has proven his honesty alongside that of his senior colleagues. Kejriwal described the entire investigation and subsequent arrests as the biggest political conspiracy in the history of independent India, aimed strategically at destabilizing his party and neutralizing its top leadership. Similarly, K Kavitha welcomed the court’s decision, maintaining that she had always denied any involvement and praising the judiciary for upholding justice.
However, despite the comprehensive discharge order from the trial court, the legal trajectory of this case is far from concluded. The Central Bureau of Investigation promptly announced its firm intention to challenge the verdict. The agency stated it will file an appeal in the Delhi High Court immediately. The investigators argue that the trial court either completely ignored or inadequately considered several crucial aspects of the probe.
The original case dates back to 2022, registered following a formal complaint by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, which alleged that the excise policy was intentionally manipulated to facilitate monopolization and cartelization within the capital city’s lucrative liquor trade.
