Delhi High Court on Monday issued notices to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others after the Central Bureau of Investigation challenged a trial court ruling that discharged all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy case, reopening a legal battle over one of the capital’s most politically charged corruption investigations.The court directed the accused to respond to the CBI’s appeal against the order of a special court that had cleared them of charges linked to the formulation and implementation of the Delhi excise policy for 2021–22. The High Court’s move signals that the matter will undergo further judicial scrutiny, with the agency arguing that the lower court erred in law while evaluating evidence.
The appeal arises from a February ruling by a special judge at the Rouse Avenue court complex in New Delhi, which discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others from the case. The judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy or corruption connected to the now-scrapped liquor policy.
Central Bureau of Investigation officials argue that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction at the stage of deciding whether charges should be framed. According to the agency’s appeal, the judge conducted what investigators described as a “mini-trial” by closely examining evidence rather than determining whether sufficient material existed to proceed to trial.
The agency’s challenge, running into hundreds of pages, contends that the order relied on a selective reading of evidence and ignored the cumulative picture presented by the investigation. Investigators maintain that the alleged conspiracy involved manipulation of policy provisions to benefit private liquor wholesalers and distributors, generating unlawful gains that were allegedly channelled through political networks.
The Delhi excise policy controversy traces its origins to the capital’s liquor licensing framework introduced for the 2021–22 financial year. The policy sought to overhaul the sale and distribution of alcohol in Delhi by replacing a government-controlled retail system with a private wholesale and retail structure. Supporters of the reform argued it would improve efficiency, increase government revenue and reduce illicit trade in liquor.
Critics, however, alleged that certain provisions of the policy created favourable conditions for select private licensees. Questions were raised about wholesale profit margins, eligibility norms and alleged coordination between officials and business groups. These allegations led to multiple investigations by central agencies, including the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.
The Central Bureau of Investigation registered its case in August 2022 after receiving information suggesting irregularities in the policy’s formulation and implementation. Investigators alleged that the framework had been deliberately designed to generate illegal benefits for private parties in exchange for kickbacks, claims that were strongly denied by political leaders linked to the policy.
Following a lengthy probe, the agency filed several chargesheets naming politicians, government officials and business figures. Prosecutors accused the group of engaging in criminal conspiracy, bribery and manipulation of regulatory provisions to influence the liquor trade in the capital.
During hearings before the special court, defence lawyers argued that the case was built largely on conjecture and lacked a verifiable money trail. They also questioned the credibility of witness statements and contended that investigators had relied heavily on hearsay evidence.
The trial judge accepted many of these arguments in the February order, observing that the material placed before the court did not disclose grounds strong enough to proceed with charges. The decision effectively halted the prosecution at a preliminary stage, prompting the CBI to move the High Court almost immediately.
The discharge order also included critical remarks about aspects of the investigation and the role of the investigating officer, drawing strong objections from the agency. The High Court has since taken note of those concerns while considering the CBI’s appeal and related requests.
Political reactions to the case have remained sharply divided. Leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party have consistently maintained that the allegations were politically motivated and aimed at weakening the party’s leadership. Opponents have argued that the investigation raised serious questions about governance and regulatory oversight in the capital.
Legal experts say the High Court proceedings will focus on whether the special court applied the correct legal standard while assessing the evidence. At the stage of framing charges, courts generally examine whether the prosecution’s case, taken at face value, discloses sufficient grounds for trial rather than weighing the credibility of each piece of evidence.