A Delhi court on Friday delivered a stinging rebuke to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) while discharging all 23 accused in the Delhi liquor excise policy case, including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his former deputy Manish Sisodia. The Rouse Avenue Court held that the prosecution’s case was speculative, legally untenable, and driven by preconceived assumptions rather than solid evidence.
In its detailed order, the court dismantled the CBI’s conspiracy theory surrounding the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22. It observed that the agency failed to establish any criminal intent, illegal gain, or loss to the public exchequer arising from the formulation or implementation of the policy. The judge noted that the investigation appeared to conflate policy decisions with criminal conduct without meeting the legal threshold required for prosecution.
The court was particularly critical of the CBI’s economic reasoning, remarking that the prosecution lacked a basic understanding of policy formulation and market dynamics. It said decisions related to licence fees, profit margins, and revenue projections fall within the realm of administrative and economic judgment, and cannot automatically be construed as criminal acts unless supported by concrete evidence of corruption or quid pro quo.
Rejecting the narrative of a grand conspiracy, the court underscored that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. It pointed out that the prosecution relied heavily on assumptions and post-facto interpretations rather than contemporaneous records, expert testimony, or financial trails to support its claims.
The order also came down heavily on the CBI’s reliance on approver statements. The court observed that the agency attempted to fill gaps in its investigation by granting pardon to certain accused and then using their statements to implicate others. Such an approach, the judge warned, was improper and posed a serious threat to constitutional safeguards and the right to a fair trial. The court cautioned that permitting such practices would reduce criminal investigations to tools for narrative-building rather than truth-seeking.
“The investigative process cannot be used to manufacture a case,” the court noted, stressing that criminal law demands a higher standard of proof, especially when elected representatives and policy decisions are involved.
The excise policy case had triggered a major political storm and led to the arrest and prolonged incarceration of several senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Kejriwal’s arrest in March 2024 while he was serving as Delhi Chief Minister was unprecedented and intensified accusations that central agencies were being misused for political ends.
Legal experts say the ruling has far-reaching implications. By clearly distinguishing between administrative decisions and criminal wrongdoing, the judgment sets an important precedent for future corruption probes involving public policy. It reinforces the principle that investigative agencies must demonstrate clear evidence of intent and benefit, rather than rely on inference or political narratives.
With all 23 accused discharged, the court’s order marks a decisive collapse of the prosecution’s case and raises serious questions about the credibility and competence of the investigation. The verdict is expected to influence ongoing debates about the limits of criminal law in scrutinising economic policy decisions and the accountability of investigative agencies themselves.
