Today, On 27th February, A Delhi court ordered action against a Central Bureau of Investigation officer in the excise policy case, saying departmental proceedings are needed to ensure accountability. The judge termed the investigation “pre-meditated and choreographed,” asserting the allegations were tailored to support a narrative.
A Delhi court directed the initiation of departmental proceedings against a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officer who oversaw the investigation into the Delhi excise policy case.
This decision follows the discharge of all 23 accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court ordered an inquiry into the investigating officer (IO) for designating Kuldeep Singh, a public servant and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, as accused number one.
ALSO READ: Court Directs Case Against Arvind Kejriwal for Alleged Misuse of Public Funds
Judge Singh stated in court,
“I am recommending a departmental inquiry with respect to framing A1 [Singh] as an accused. There is no material at all. I am repeating, there is no material at all, and you have framed him as accused number 1,”
In his detailed ruling, the judge characterized the IO’s investigation as “pre-meditated and choreographed,” asserting that the allegations against the public servant were not part of an impartial investigation but were instead constructed to support a pre-existing narrative.
The court also raised concerns regarding the IO’s decision to classify individuals as suspects while simultaneously naming them as prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet.
Specifically, it highlighted Arva Gopi Krishna, the former Excise Commissioner, and Anand Kumar Tewari, the former Deputy Commissioner, both listed as suspects, with Krishna also referred to as prosecution witness-74.
The court remarked,
“This self-contradictory stance cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural irregularity. It betrays a conscious and calculated stratagem by which the investigating officer has sought to keep the narrative deliberately fluid, relying upon the individual’s statement to prop up the prosecution case, while at the same time preserving the option of implicating that very person should the case, as projected, fail to withstand judicial scrutiny,”
The court emphasized that the CBI officer’s approach indicated preemptive manipulation aimed at safeguarding the investigator rather than aiding the court in uncovering the truth.
Additionally, the court stated that departmental proceedings against the CBI officer were necessary to establish accountability and maintain the credibility of the investigative process.
The court concluded,
“An investigation must rest on a clear, consistent and principled assessment of the material collected, and not on calculated ambiguity intended to preserve future prosecutorial options. In these circumstances, the course consistent with the duty of the Court is not merely to discount the tainted investigative material, but also to recommend initiation of appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring investigating officer for framing A-1 as an accused in the absence of any material against him, so that accountability is fixed and the institutional credibility of the investigative machinery is preserved,”
The case emerged in 2022 when the CBI filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy had been manipulated to enable monopolization and cartelization in the liquor trade.
This investigation was prompted by a complaint from Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022. The CBI claimed that leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to the policy’s manipulation.
Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also initiated a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The situation led to numerous arrests of opposition figures, which some criticized as politically motivated. Allegations surfaced that a criminal conspiracy had been formulated by AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Kejriwal, along with various unnamed private entities during the policy’s development stage.
It was claimed that intentional loopholes were created in the policy to benefit specific liquor licensees and conspirators after the tender process.
Many of the political leaders spent significant time in jail, as bail requests were denied by the Rouse Avenue Court and the Delhi High Court. It was only later that the Supreme Court granted them relief.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal