New Delhi: A Delhi court on Friday acquitted the former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwalhis then deputy Manish Sisodia And 21 others have been convicted of any wrongdoing in planning and executing the now-cancelled 2021-22 season. Delhi Excise PolicyIt marked a dramatic turn in the high-profile case, which cast a long shadow over the capital’s politics and influenced the assembly elections last year.
In a 549-page order, Rouse Avenue court special judge Jitendra Singh acquitted the accused, including former Telangana MLA K Kavitha, and said he had no hesitation in holding that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) material does not even reveal a prima facie case, leave alone serious doubt.
Read this also Relief from court, tears, band-baja, then challenge of re-election in Delhi: Kejriwal’s big day in the capital.
The court said that the excise policy case, as sought to be presented by the CBI, could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was completely discredited. It said the alleged conspiracy was nothing more than a hypothetical construction based on conjecture and conjecture and lacked any admissible evidence.
“The investigation, when tested against the material collected by the agency, reflects a fundamental failure in properly appreciating, evaluating or drawing valid conclusions from the evidence and documents on record. As a result, the case of the prosecution becomes legally weak, untenable and unfit to be pursued in law. Stated differently, this court records that a widespread conspiracy theory, which has been so emphatically put forward, is completely destroyed when tested against the evidentiary record,” the court said. Said.
Kejriwal appreciated the decision.
Crying in front of the television cameras, the AAP chief said, “Two people, PM Modi and Amit Shah, hatched this conspiracy to destroy the Aam Aadmi Party. Today they should apologize to the country. I have earned only honesty, not money. Now it has been proved that Kejriwal and AAP are staunchly honest.”
Later in the day, the CBI moved the Delhi High Court. “Many aspects of the investigation were either ignored or not adequately considered,” an agency spokesperson said.
Read this also Delhi court pulls up CBI over ‘South Group’ tag in charge sheet in excise policy case
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said the verdict was technical and the AAP leader was still guilty. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta said, “We all know how the evidence was tampered with. If you (Kejriwal) were right, then why did you withdraw the liquor policy as soon as the investigation started?… The courts had also expressed concern over this case and traces of money laundering were found. Even today you are shedding crocodile tears.”
Kejriwal, Sisodia and former Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh were among the prominent AAP leaders arrested in connection with the excise policy, in which the federal agency allegedly paid bribes.
The policy was launched in November 2021 for the financial year 2021-22, taking the government out of liquor retail and allowing private companies to bid for licenses. The aim, the Delhi government said, was to improve the shopping experience for citizens by raising standards of competition in the market.
But the policy was canceled when Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena demanded a probe, citing a report by the Chief Secretary which alleged financial irregularities. AAP rejected the allegations, alleging that it was a ploy by the BJP-controlled central government to target its rival.
Sisodia was first arrested in February 2023 and spent nearly 17 months in jail before he was granted bail by the Supreme Court. Kejriwal was first arrested in March 2024 – weeks before the general elections, where he campaigned while out on interim bail – and was finally granted regular bail by the top court in September that year. Kejriwal, Sisodia and others – including several excise officials and party members – faced allegations that the liquor policy was designed to benefit certain licensees in return for bribes, which were allegedly included in the Aam Aadmi Party’s Goa campaign. The CBI case alleged that the accused persons manipulated the policy in favor of an alleged lobby of liquor businessmen, called the “South Group”.
The court acquitted all the accused in the CBI case, which was registered in August 2022 under Indian Penal Code sections related to criminal conspiracy, cheating and causing disappearance of evidence, besides punishable sections under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
By July 2024, the CBI had filed a total of five chargesheets; While the first chargesheet named low-level officials and businessmen, the fourth supplementary chargesheet named Kejriwal, alleging his direct involvement as a “widespread conspirator” of the now defunct policy.
In the same year, the case was investigated by the Enforcement Directorate under sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and a wider conspiracy involving alleged hawala transfers and shell companies. Its future is unclear after the main CBI case collapsed.
Friday’s judgment said the allegations made by Kejriwal – the 18th accused – could not be corroborated and were merely circumstantial, essentially based on the hearsay statement of another witness. The court said no document or digital evidence was produced to directly or indirectly link Kejriwal to any alleged policy manipulation or illegal gratification. The court said, “There is no material to show his presence at any conspiratorial meeting or to indicate his knowledge of any unlawful arrangement. The attempt to implicate him is based on inferences drawn from statements such as those of an unconfirmed associate.”
The court said that even the prosecution’s approvers, who claimed to have knowledge right from the formulation stage of the policy to the alleged use of funds, were silent about Kejriwal’s role.
On Sisodia, who held the excise department at the time and was allegedly the “key architect” and “controlling force” behind the policy, the court said no evidence shows any concealment or unilateral manipulation by the former minister.
The court said Sisodia, represented by senior advocate Rebecca John and advocate Vivek Jain, followed the relevant constitutional channels to incorporate all the suggestions recommended by then Delhi LG Anil Baijal in the draft policy. The order said the evidence actually points to institutional involvement rather than individual exercise of authority by him. “The record does not disclose prima facie material to show that A-8 (Sisodia) took unilateral action or made any covert manipulation in the formulation of the policy.”
Pulling up the prosecution for investigative lapses and absence of any concrete evidence, the court also recommended a departmental inquiry against one of the accused, Kuldeep Singh, against the erring investigating officer in the absence of any material to implicate him. The court said Singh was suspended from the post of deputy commissioner in the excise department due to his alleged role in the case.
The court emphasized that unlike the CBI case, the evidence clearly established that the excise policy was the result of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after discussions with relevant stakeholders in accordance with law. “This court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to produce any material which prima facie suggests that DEP-21/22 was manipulated, altered or engineered to confer any undue or unlawful advantage to any private individual or the so-called South Group,” the order said. “Although there was no statutory or constitutional requirement to receive suggestions from the Honorable Lieutenant Governor, the file noting clearly shows that such suggestions were nevertheless sought, examined and incorporated.”
Referring to the allegations of illegal funds being allegedly used in the Goa Assembly elections, the court said, “Linking such allegations to the Goa Assembly elections, so as to project, layer and utilize the alleged proceeds of crime, depends more on conjecture and assumption than on legally sustainable material.”
The court also expressed displeasure with the CBI for using the phrase “South Group”.
“I think such terminology should be avoided… Is it possible that if the CBI had filed the same chargesheet in a Chennai court, it would not have been considered defamatory?” “Why didn’t you say that the accused belonged to the Northern group?”
