In a development related to the Delhi excise policy case, the Delhi High Court granted limited relief to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by suspending certain adverse observations made earlier by a trial court while it cleared former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia of all charges. The High Court’s intervention came after the investigative agency objected to remarks that it considered damaging to its credibility and case record.
Acting on submissions made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the High Court indicated that the contentious remarks passed by the trial court would not remain in force. The observations, which were described as “prejudicial,” had criticized the conduct and conclusions of the investigating officers. The High Court subsequently set aside those remarks, effectively removing them from the judicial record.
The observations in question were made on February 27 by the Rouse Avenue Court, which had strongly criticized the agency’s case. The trial court had stated that the CBI’s theory was “demonstrably erroneous, economically illiterate and legally unsustainable,” while noting that the prosecution failed to place convincing and substantial evidence against the accused individuals.
However, even while granting partial relief, the High Court declined the CBI’s request to stay the discharge order that had cleared all accused persons in the matter. This meant that although the remarks were put on hold, the acquittal order itself continued to remain in effect.
While hearing the CBI’s petition challenging the acquittal, the Delhi High Court directed Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 other individuals to file their responses. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 16, allowing both sides additional time to present their arguments and documentation.
During the proceedings, the court also indicated that it may issue instructions to the trial court to postpone hearings in a connected money laundering investigation being conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. This step was seen as an effort to maintain procedural consistency across related legal matters.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the High Court to fast-track the case and establish a definite timeline for hearings so that the agency’s challenge could be resolved without delay. He argued that the discharge order passed by the lower court suffered from serious legal flaws and required urgent reconsideration.
According to him, the ruling was fundamentally flawed and had effectively reversed established criminal law principles. He further maintained that the excise policy controversy represented one of the most significant corruption cases in recent years and amounted to a clear instance of wrongdoing.
The Solicitor General also contended that the trial court’s order amounted to an acquittal without the conduct of a full-fledged trial. He stated that the investigative agency had collected sufficient material to establish an alleged conspiracy and bribery arrangement linked to the implementation of the liquor policy.
He emphasized that there was adequate evidence to justify the framing of charges against Kejriwal, Sisodia, and the other accused persons. He added that the agency’s case was supported by statements from approvers as well as multiple witnesses.
On February 27, the Rouse Avenue trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 others, concluding that the prosecution’s case did not meet the threshold required for trial. Among those who were granted relief was BRS leader K Kavitha.
The CBI continues to investigate alleged irregularities in the drafting and execution of the now-withdrawn excise policy that had been introduced by the AAP-led Delhi government.
