The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has announced an immediate appeal in the Delhi High Court against a trial court’s discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, along with 21 others, in the controversial 2022 Delhi excise policy case after the court refused to take cognisance of the CBI chargesheet citing lack of evidence.
The CBI has confirmed that it will move the Delhi High Court “immediately” to challenge Friday’s trial court order that discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others from the excise policy case. The agency said several crucial aspects of its investigation were “ignored or not considered adequately” by the special court, necessitating appellate review.
In its official statement, the CBI emphasised that the appeal is being filed as a matter of legal right following what it terms “lacunae” in the trial court’s handling of its chargesheet. The agency has declined to comment in detail on specific evidence but reiterated that its probe involved detailed examination and documentation of alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the now-scrapped excise policy.
The excise policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in 2021-22, faced sharp political controversy and was subsequently withdrawn amid allegations that it conferred undue benefits to certain liquor licensees and caused loss to the state exchequer.
The CBI’s case included charges relating to conspiracy, cheating, and corruption under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Trial Court Slams CBI; No Prima Facie Case Found
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court discharged all accused, citing “no cogent evidence” against Kejriwal and “no prima facie case” against Sisodia and others. The court refused to take cognisance of the prosecution’s chargesheet, noting multiple gaps and internal contradictions that undermined the narrative of criminal conspiracy.
The judge observed that the voluminous chargesheet contained several “misleading averments” not supported by witness testimony or material evidence, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of corruption or conspiracy in the excise policy’s formulation or execution.
In a rare rebuke, the court also flagged the conduct of the CBI’s investigating officer, suggesting departmental action against the officer for pursuing a case “solely on the basis of inadmissible hearsay attributed to an approver” and for disregarding basic evidentiary standards a development that the CBI will likely address in its appeal.
Reactions: AAP, Critics and Political Response
Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who appeared visibly emotional after the verdict, celebrated the discharge as vindication of his long-standing claim that the case was politically motivated. He told supporters that the decision proved he was “not corrupt” and reiterated that the allegations stemmed from a concerted effort to tarnish his party’s image.
Kejriwal accused senior leaders of the ruling party at the Centre, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, of orchestrating what he described as the “biggest political conspiracy in independent India” to “crush” the AAP remarks that have already ignited fresh political debate about the intersection of law enforcement and partisan politics.
AAP leaders also welcomed the court’s findings, dubbing the verdict a “triumph of truth” and a rejection of what they have repeatedly labelled a “fake liquor scam.” Critics of the ruling have echoed concerns about the prolonged investigation and the impact it had on public perception, especially given the absence of evidence deemed sufficient for trial.
Opposition voices and legal analysts have noted that the discharge order, which is legally more significant than an acquittal, implies that the prosecution did not even cross the initial threshold to prosecute in court. This has led to broader discussions about investigative standards and the role of central agencies in politically charged cases.
Legal and Political Context: A long, Contentious Journey
The excise policy case has been one of the most contentious legal matters in recent Indian political history. The CBI registered its FIR against Sisodia and others in August 2022, sparking prolonged legal battles over bail, evidence and the jurisdiction and conduct of investigating agencies.
Manish Sisodia spent more than a year in custody during various stages of the investigation, even as courts debated rights to a speedy trial and the admissibility of evidence. Kejriwal was also detained at points in the probe, adding to the political and legal drama that has unfolded over more than three years.
Beyond legal arguments, the case became a focal point of political polarisation, with AAP framing it as an example of institutional overreach in service of political ends, and critics urging stronger legal and procedural safeguards. Analysts now say the High Court appeal will further test judicial scrutiny of investigative agencies and may influence public confidence in both institutions and political narratives.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At its core, this story is about due process, institutional integrity and democratic ethos. Courts and investigative agencies must operate on the strength of credible evidence, fair procedure and respect for the rule of law — not on political undercurrents. The trial court’s observations raise serious questions about prosecutorial conduct, but the decision to appeal also underscores that legal avenues remain open to ensure accountability where genuine wrongdoing might exist.
Our faith in democracy rests on balanced, transparent processes rather than partisan victories. Regardless of political affiliation, citizens deserve clarity, fairness and the assurance that justice is neither delayed nor driven by bias.
