Delhi Excise Policy Case: CBI Challenges Kejriwal, Sisodia Acquittal in HC

The Delhi Excise Policy case has seen a significant new development, with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filing a voluminous 974-page revision petition before the Delhi High Court. The CBI's move comes in response to a trial court order issued on February 27, 2026, which discharged all 23 accused in the contentious case, including prominent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. The Delhi High Court is set to hear the CBI's challenging plea on March 9, 2026, with the matter listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma following the Holi break. The trial court's verdict, delivered by Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh at Rouse Avenue Court, had been a substantial blow to the investigative agency's efforts. The court, in an extensive order reportedly comprising over 1,100 paragraphs, concluded that the CBI's case was "wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny" and was "discredited in its entirety". The Special Judge observed that there was "no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent" in either the formulation or the implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, finding no prima facie case that would warrant a trial against any of the 23 accused individuals. The court was particularly critical of the CBI's investigative methods, highlighting that the prosecution's case appeared to rely more on speculative theories than on concrete, legally admissible evidence. The agency's "theory of an overarching conspiracy" was specifically rejected by the court. Beyond dismissing the charges, the trial court also issued a sharp reprimand to the CBI for its persistent use of the term "South Group" in its chargesheets, stating that such a regional label lacked any foundation in criminal law and was arbitrary. Adding to its criticism, the court indicated that it would recommend departmental action against the CBI officer responsible for the investigation. This recommendation stemmed from the officer's decision to name a public servant, Kuldeep Singh, as accused number one without presenting adequate material evidence. The judge further cautioned against the increasing reliance on approver statements by investigative agencies to fill gaps in evidence, suggesting that such practices could potentially compromise fundamental constitutional safeguards. In its comprehensive revision petition, the CBI has strongly contested the trial court's order, characterising it as "patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face". The agency has argued that the Special Judge exceeded the permissible scope of proceedings by conducting what amounted to a "mini-trial" – a detailed examination of evidence at the preliminary stage of framing charges. The CBI's plea asserts that the judge engaged in a "selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused". The agency also expressed its shock at the judge's directive for departmental action against its officer and has sought a stay on this particular instruction. The CBI contends that the trial court made errors in its analysis of the roles played by Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia and failed to appreciate the "conspectus of the conspiracy in its entirety". The Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which was introduced by the AAP government in November 2021, aimed to bring reforms to liquor sales in the national capital by involving private entities. However, the policy was eventually scrapped in September 2022 amidst allegations of irregularities and widespread corruption. The origins of the case trace back to a complaint lodged by Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena in July 2022, recommending a CBI inquiry into alleged procedural anomalies. Subsequently, the CBI filed a First Information Report (FIR) in August 2022, alleging that the policy had been manipulated to facilitate the monopolisation and cartelisation of the liquor trade, thereby benefiting certain private players through reduced license fees and fixed profit margins, and purportedly leading to kickbacks for AAP leaders. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) also initiated a parallel money laundering case in connection with the same allegations. Both Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia have faced intense legal scrutiny and personal hardship throughout the course of this case. Manish Sisodia was arrested by the CBI in February 2023 and subsequently by the ED, enduring a significant period in judicial custody. Arvind Kejriwal himself was arrested by the ED in March 2024 and later formally by the CBI while already in custody, spending several months in Tihar Jail before being granted interim bail by the Supreme Court. The trial court's recent discharge order came after extensive legal proceedings and intense public and media attention, with the court asserting that compelling the accused to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial in the absence of legally admissible evidence would constitute a "manifest miscarriage of justice". The CBI's decision to appeal to the Delhi High Court signals the continuation of what remains a high-stakes legal and political confrontation in India. The outcome of the High Court's hearing on March 9 will carry significant implications for the accused individuals, the credibility of the investigative agencies, and the broader political narrative within the country. The trial court's strong observations regarding the CBI's investigation have already fueled considerable public discourse on the accountability of investigative bodies and the evidentiary standards required for prosecution in high-profile cases. The Delhi High Court's impending decision will be crucial in determining the future trajectory of this complex and widely watched case. The original article is sourced from Bar and Bench, a highly regarded legal news portal in India, known for its accurate and unbiased reporting on court proceedings and legal developments. Its editorial focus on presenting factual legal information and directly citing court documents significantly contributes to the strong credibility of its news coverage.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest