A court in Delhi has discharged former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his one-time deputy Manish Sisodia in legal proceedings linked to the capital’s controversial excise policy, ruling there was insufficient evidence to frame criminal charges in matters concerning compliance with enforcement agency summons. The decision marks a significant turn in a high-profile series of investigations that have dominated political discourse since the policy was introduced in 2021. The Rouse Avenue Court on 22 January acquitted Kejriwal in two separate cases filed by the Enforcement Directorate alleging non-compliance with its summons issued during the investigation of the excise policy. Similar relief was extended to Manish Sisodia, who had been named in related proceedings. Judicial officers concluded that the prosecution had not demonstrated sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed to trial on the summons-related complaints.
Both leaders have faced intense legal scrutiny over the past few years as part of sprawling inquiries into the excise policy, which was framed by the government for the sale and distribution of liquor across the city. Central agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation and the ED, alleged that the policy contained irregularities designed to confer undue benefits on private interests and facilitate money laundering, though these broader allegations are being litigated in other forums and remain contested.
Legal analysts say the court’s ruling on the summons compliance cases does not equate to an acquittal on all charges connected to the excise policy probe, but it crucially undercuts a narrow subset of enforcement actions initiated on procedural grounds. Counsel for Kejriwal argued that the summons were improperly served and that there was no legal obligation for the former chief minister to respond in the manner alleged by the ED. The bench agreed that the prosecution had not established a legal basis to sustain the complaints.
Sisodia, who has been a central figure in the excise policy investigations, has already secured bail in several other matters and repeatedly maintained that the charges against him are politically motivated. His legal team highlighted the absence of direct evidence linking him to financial improprieties in the drafting or implementation of the excise policy. The court’s decision to discharge him in these specific proceedings reinforces arguments by defence counsel that procedural defects undermined the prosecution’s case.
The excise policy, rolled out in 2021 for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, was intended to rationalise liquor licences and overhaul an often-criticised distribution regime. However, opposition parties and some legal challenges contended that clauses in the policy, such as wholesale profit margins and licensing conditions, deviated from established norms and potentially favoured select business interests. According to legal filings, the policy became the subject of multiple complaints and served as the basis for both CBI and ED probes.
The ED’s case, structured around alleged money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, stemmed from allegations that failure to comply with its summons constituted obstruction and warranted criminal proceedings. Defence arguments in court underscored that summons served via electronic communication were not validly executed, and that the prosecution’s interpretation of procedural obligations was strained. The judge’s ruling reflected these concerns, noting that without a clear statutory basis, the complaints could not be sustained.
Political responses to the court’s decision have been sharply divided. Leaders aligned with Kejriwal and Sisodia welcomed the ruling as vindication of their long-standing assertion that the cases had been driven by political intent rather than robust evidentiary grounds. They underscored the importance of due process and adherence to lawful investigative procedures, warning against the use of coercive powers without clear legal foundation.
Opposition figures, however, maintained that the discharge in these specific procedural cases does not absolve the leaders of broader allegations related to the excise policy’s formulation and implementation. They noted that separate proceedings and charges remain under consideration in other courts, and insisted that accountability for policy irregularities and any associated misconduct must be fully adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Legal experts observing the developments highlighted that discharge from summons compliance cases could expedite other aspects of the litigation by narrowing the scope of issues in play. They observed that future hearings will focus more squarely on substantive allegations, and pointed out that procedural victories such as this one do not necessarily determine outcomes on the merits of corruption or conspiracy charges.