The Delhi High Court fixed October 5 for arguments on the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy case, after a hearing over maintainability.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday took up the CBI’s revision petition challenging the discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the excise policy corruption case, but spent the hearing largely on procedural skirmishing over maintainability and the filing of replies, ultimately fixing the matter for substantive arguments in October [Central Bureau of Investigation v. Arvind Kejriwal and Others].
Justice Manoj Jain heard the matter, in which the accused have raised preliminary objections to the very maintainability of the CBI’s plea. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for Kejriwal, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju appeared for the CBI.
The maintainability objection
At the outset, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari, appearing in one of the connected revision petitions, pressed that the question of maintainability had to be decided first, submitting that the objection “goes to the root of the matter.” He contended that the Investigating Officer was not competent to file the revision and that there was no vakalatnama supporting it, arguing that “if there is an objection to the maintainability of the revision, the matter cannot proceed until that issue is decided.”
Justice Jain noted that other respondents had, by an order of May 8, similarly raised maintainability objections that were kept pending to be heard together. The ASG dismissed the objections as “frivolous,” while Chaudhari sought time to open his arguments, submitting that the revision was “absolutely misconceived” and, invoking a familiar maxim, that “procedure is the handmaid of justice.”
The Court declined to treat the preliminary objection as a precondition to everything else, telling counsel: “Let me decide when the issue is to be taken up. Don’t make it a precondition.” It also cautioned that a party could not both press a preliminary objection and, if it failed, fall back on arguing the merits — “Hypothetically, if that application is dismissed, you cannot continue pressing the preliminary objection while also addressing the merits.”
The row over the 103-page submissions
A sharper dispute broke out over additional material the CBI had filed. Hariharan objected that the agency had, “just the day before,” served additional written submissions running to 103 pages, along with two annexures not part of the original record containing a tabulation of alleged errors in the discharge order. He submitted that these raised substantive grounds not contained in the revision petition itself:
“These 103 pages raise substantive grounds that are not even part of the revision petition. They are trying to do indirectly what they could not do in the revision itself. If these submissions are being taken on record, I will need an opportunity to respond.”
The Solicitor General countered that “the grounds are not new,” and accused the defence of seeking to avoid the merits — “This is the best point they have. They do not want to address the matter on merits.” The Court declined to enter that controversy at this stage, recording that it would take note of the preliminary objections.
Sparring over delay
The exchanges grew pointed over who was responsible for delay. When Hariharan sought an opportunity to rebut the written submissions, Justice Jain observed that a final opportunity to file replies had already been granted on July 15, and remarked that the defence was “not even allowing them to open their case.” Hariharan responded that if his time had expired, “then their time had expired much earlier,” and urged the Court to “ensure that the scales remain balanced.”
The Solicitor General pressed for the matter to be decided, submitting that the accused were “publicly proclaiming that they have a brilliant order in their favour” and should “let us have the matter decided,” and asking the Court to record that no further adjournments be granted. Hariharan dismissed some of the exchange as “just banter.”
READ MORE: “You Argued Well. Vakeel Ban Sakte Hain Aap”: Delhi High Court Judge to Arvind Kejriwal
The schedule set
Bringing the procedural wrangling to a close, Justice Jain granted all parties four weeks to file whatever replies were required, clarifying that “nothing will be permitted after that.” He cancelled the date fixed for the following day, directed that the arguments be heard comprehensively rather than piecemeal, and fixed the week beginning October 5 for the commencement of arguments, with October 5-6 set for the petitioner-CBI to open its submissions. The Court recorded that no further adjournments would be granted, that the matter would be heard along with the connected petitions, and that the interim order would continue.
Background: the discharge the CBI is challenging
The revision arises from a significant setback to the prosecution. On February 27, 2026, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts discharged all 23 accused in the CBI’s excise-policy case, including Kejriwal and Sisodia, after hearing arguments over an extended period. In a detailed order, the trial court declined to take cognisance of the CBI’s chargesheet, holding that the prosecution’s case suffered from significant gaps unsupported by evidence and could not survive judicial scrutiny.
The CBI’s case had centred on alleged irregularities in the framing and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 — since scrapped — with the agency alleging that undue benefits were extended to a group of liquor businesses in exchange for kickbacks. The trial court’s discharge order, however, found the chargesheet wanting.
The CBI challenged that order before the High Court with what the accused describe as “unprecedented haste” — the revision petition having been filed, on their account, within roughly four hours of the discharge order being pronounced. In its petition, the CBI contends that the discharge order was “patently illegal” and “perverse,” suffering from errors apparent on its face, and that the trial court effectively conducted a “mini-trial” at the stage of framing of charges, weighing the evidence in a manner impermissible at that stage. The accused, for their part, contend that the revision fails to identify any specific finding that is perverse, and that the agency has not shown, accused by accused, how the discharge was unsupported by the evidence.
The matter was earlier before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, who in March issued notice on the CBI’s plea and made certain prima facie observations, following which Kejriwal and other accused sought her recusal; the case is now being heard by Justice Manoj Jain.
It bears emphasis that the accused stand discharged, and that the CBI’s challenge to that discharge is yet to be decided. Nothing has been established against any of them, and the question before the High Court is confined to whether the trial court’s discharge order can be sustained.
For Arvind Kejriwal: N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv.
For the CBI: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, with S.V. Raju, ASG
Also appearing: Vikram Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.; Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.; Rebecca John, Sr. Adv.
