The CBI has challenged the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the Delhi excise policy case, calling the trial court’s order shocking and legally flawed. The Delhi High Court will hear the 974-page revision petition on March 9 after the Holi break.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Delhi High Court by filing a massive 974-page criminal revision petition against the recent trial court order that discharged all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy case. The discharged individuals include senior Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, both leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
The matter has been listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on March 9, after the Holi break, when the High Court reopens.
In its petition, the CBI has strongly challenged the February 27 order passed by Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh. The agency has described the trial court’s decision as
“patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face”.
According to the CBI, the Special Judge went beyond the limited scope of deciding whether charges should be framed and instead conducted what amounts to a detailed examination of evidence.
The CBI has argued that the trial court wrongly examined different parts of the alleged conspiracy separately rather than considering the overall picture. As stated in the plea,
“The Ld Special Judge has passed the impugned order on a selective reading of the prosecution case, disregarding the material showing the culpability of the accused.”
The investigating agency has also objected to the trial court’s direction to initiate departmental action against the CBI officer who investigated the case. The CBI has termed this direction as “shocking to say the least”. It has therefore sought a stay on the direction ordering action against its officer.
Further, the CBI pointed out that during the pronouncement of the discharge order, the judge orally mentioned that he had spent several months studying the case file in detail. The agency argues that such detailed appreciation of evidence is not permitted at the stage of framing charges. The plea says that the judge’s approach reflects appreciation of evidence in great detail, which is not legally permissible at this preliminary stage.
The agency has also stated that many remarks made by the trial court were unfair and legally incorrect. According to the revision petition, the judge’s observations were
“unduly harsh on the prosecuting agency, especially when the same are made on incorrect understanding of law and incorrect facts.”
The CBI has further contended that the trial court failed to properly analyse the roles of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the alleged conspiracy.
The plea states,
“The Ld Special Judge has erred in not appreciating the conspectus of the conspiracy in its entirety. Such piecemeal appreciation of evidence, rather than a conjoint reading of the case, has led to the passing of the Impugned Order, which needs to be set aside,”
the appeal states.
The revision plea has been filed through advocates Manu Mishra and Garima Saxena.
The case dates back to 2022, when the CBI registered an FIR alleging irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021–22. The FIR was registered based on a complaint by Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022.
The CBI claimed that the policy was manipulated to allow monopolisation and cartelisation in the liquor trade in Delhi. It was alleged that certain loopholes were deliberately created or left in the policy to benefit selected liquor licensees after the tender process.
The agency also alleged that leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to manipulation of the policy. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a separate case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Over time, several opposition leaders were arrested in connection with the case. These arrests drew political criticism, with some calling them politically motivated. The political leaders spent a significant period in custody after the Rouse Avenue Court and the Delhi High Court denied them bail. Later, the Supreme Court of India granted them relief.
On February 27, however, the trial court discharged all 23 accused, stating that the prosecution’s case could not stand judicial scrutiny. The court held that the CBI had tried to build a case of conspiracy based only on assumptions and insufficient evidence. It concluded that the matter did not deserve to proceed to trial.
The Special Judge also strongly criticised the investigation process, particularly the use of approver statements. The court observed,
“If such conduct is allowed, it would be a grave violation of the Constitutional principles. The conduct where an accused is granted pardon and then made an approver, his statements used to fill the gaps in the investigation/narrative and make additional people accused is wrong,”
the judge said.
Additionally, the trial court announced that it would recommend a departmental inquiry against CBI officials who had made a public servant, Kuldeep Singh, accused number one in the case.
Challenging this verdict in totality, the CBI has now moved the Delhi High Court, seeking to overturn the discharge order and stay the direction for departmental action against its officer. The High Court is expected to consider the agency’s arguments when the matter comes up for hearing on March 9.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Delhi Excise Policy Case
