Delhi HC Deems Trial Court's Remarks in Liquor Policy Case 'Erroneous'

In a significant development concerning the Delhi Excise Policy case, the Delhi High Court has termed certain observations made by a trial court as "prima facie erroneous" while it discharged former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case. On Monday, March 9, 2026, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court stated that the trial court's findings regarding the statements of witnesses and approvers, at the stage of framing charges, appeared to be erroneous and warranted further consideration. The development stems from a special CBI court's order on February 27, 2026, which had discharged all 23 accused in the CBI's investigation into alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The trial court, in its detailed order, had strongly criticized the CBI's investigation, describing it as a "pre-meditated and choreographed exercise" and concluding that the agency failed to establish even a prima facie case against the accused. Beyond merely discharging the accused, the trial court had also made scathing remarks against the CBI's investigating officer, even recommending departmental action against him for allegedly abusing his official position to conduct an unfair investigation. These observations were deemed "prima facie foundationally misconceived" by the Delhi High Court, especially considering they were made at the stage of framing charges. Consequently, the High Court has stayed these specific observations against the investigating officer, including the directive for departmental action, until the next hearing. Simultaneously, the CBI has filed a revision petition before the Delhi High Court, challenging the trial court's order that discharged all the accused. The High Court has issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and the other 21 discharged individuals, seeking their responses on the CBI's appeal. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 16, 2026. In a related but separate plea, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has also approached the Delhi High Court. The ED seeks to expunge certain "adverse, sweeping and unwarranted observations" made against it by the trial court in the February 27 discharge order. The ED argued that it was not a party to the CBI proceedings and was not given an opportunity to be heard before such remarks, which directly impact its ongoing money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), were recorded. The agency contended that these observations amounted to "judicial overreach" and were based on "pure conjectures." The High Court has issued notice on the ED's petition and has indicated that it may decide both the CBI's appeal and the ED's plea together, noting that the entire trial court judgment is already under challenge. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court has requested the trial court, where proceedings for the connected money laundering case (being investigated by the ED) are pending, to adjourn the matter to a date later than the High Court's hearing and await the outcome of the CBI's revision plea. This ensures that the observations and rulings made by the High Court in the CBI's appeal do not prejudicially affect the ED's case. It's crucial to note that while the High Court has stayed the adverse remarks against the CBI and its officer, it has *not* stayed the discharge order itself at this stage. The legal battle highlights the intricate dynamics between different investigative agencies and the judiciary in high-profile cases involving political figures in India. The case has drawn significant attention due to the involvement of key political leaders and the serious allegations of corruption surrounding the scrapped excise policy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest