Delhi HC issues notice on CBI plea against Kejriwal, Sisodia discharge
The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others on a CBI plea challenging their discharge in the liquor policy case. The court also stayed adverse remarks made by the trial court against the CBI.
Key Highlights
- CBI challenges discharge of Kejriwal and Sisodia in liquor policy case.
- Delhi High Court issues notice to all accused.
- Trial court's adverse remarks against CBI stayed.
- Proceedings in connected ED case to be deferred.
The Delhi High Court on Monday, March 9, 2026, issued a notice to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, along with 21 other individuals, in response to a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI is challenging the trial court's decision to discharge these individuals in the corruption case related to the alleged Delhi liquor policy scam. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, has scheduled further hearings for March 16, 2026.
During the proceedings, the High Court indicated its intention to stay the adverse observations made by the trial court against the CBI and its investigating officers. This decision came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, requested the court to halt the operation of these "prejudicial" remarks. Mehta argued that the trial court's order, which discharged all 23 accused on February 27, 2026, was "perverse" and had effectively "turned the criminal law on its head." He asserted that the CBI had gathered substantial evidence, including conspiracy and bribery allegations linked to a manipulated liquor policy, and that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the accused. He further emphasized that the CBI's case was supported by approvers and witnesses.
The trial court, in its February 27 order, had sharply criticized the CBI, stating that its case was "wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety." The judge had also made critical observations regarding the investigation, suggesting it was steered by a "preconceived outcome" and that lawful administrative actions were selectively extracted and stripped of context to manufacture an appearance of conspiracy. The trial court had discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia, and K. Kavitha, on the grounds that the CBI had failed to establish a prima facie case and that the voluminous chargesheet contained significant gaps and lacked support from witnesses or documents.
In addition to issuing notice to the accused, the High Court also directed the trial court to defer proceedings in the connected money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). This deferral is intended to await the outcome of the CBI's challenge to the discharge order. The liquor policy case itself revolves around allegations of irregularities in the formulation and execution of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which aimed to reform the liquor trade but was later withdrawn amidst allegations of corruption. The policy allegedly granted undue advantage to private entities in exchange for illegal gratification. The CBI's revision petition argues that the trial court erred by conducting a "mini-trial" and making an in-depth evaluation of evidence inappropriate at the charge-framing stage.
The Delhi High Court's intervention signifies a critical juncture in the liquor policy case, as the agency seeks to overturn the trial court's decision and re-establish its case against the accused. The deferral of the ED proceedings also underscores the interconnectedness of the investigations and the potential impact of the High Court's decision on the broader probe.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Delhi liquor policy case?
The Delhi liquor policy case involves allegations of corruption in the formulation and execution of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. The policy, intended to reform the liquor trade, was later withdrawn amidst accusations that it granted undue advantages to private entities for illegal gratification.
What was the trial court's decision?
On February 27, 2026, a trial court discharged Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused in the case, stating that the CBI had failed to establish a prima facie case and criticizing the agency's investigation.
Why has the CBI challenged the discharge order?
The CBI is challenging the discharge order, arguing that it has collected substantial evidence of conspiracy and bribery and that the trial court wrongly discharged the accused without a proper trial. The agency believes there is enough material to frame charges.
What is the significance of the Delhi High Court's stay on remarks against the CBI?
The High Court staying the trial court's adverse remarks against the CBI indicates that these critical observations will not be considered at this stage. It also suggests the High Court may be inclined to re-examine the evidence presented by the CBI.
