CBI Challenges Acquittal of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia in Delhi Excise Policy Case

India’s premier investigative agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that discharged 23 accused persons — including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia — in the controversial Delhi excise policy case.

In its appeal, the CBI has termed the order of the Rouse Avenue Court as legally flawed, alleging that the special judge conducted what amounted to a “mini-trial” at the stage of framing of charges and failed to properly appreciate the agency’s evidence.

Background of the Case

The case relates to Delhi’s 2021–22 excise (liquor) policy, which was later withdrawn amid allegations of irregularities. The CBI has alleged that deliberate changes were introduced into the policy framework to benefit select private entities, in return for alleged financial kickbacks.

According to the agency, the policy shifted wholesale liquor trade into private hands, increased profit margins from 5% to 12%, and relaxed certain turnover conditions — decisions it claims were not merely administrative reforms but part of a premeditated quid pro quo arrangement.

The CBI further alleges that the purported illicit funds generated through these changes were diverted for use in the Goa Assembly elections. The agency says it relies on statements from senior bureaucrats and digital evidence to substantiate its claims.

What the Trial Court Held

On February 27, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court discharged all 23 accused, observing that the material placed on record by the CBI did not establish even a prima facie case.

In his order, the judge stated that the documents and evidence presented failed to raise grave suspicion against the accused. He noted that the prosecution had not produced sufficient material to justify proceeding to trial and remarked that the theory of a large-scale conspiracy did not withstand scrutiny based on the available evidence.

The court also observed that allegations relating to the Goa elections appeared to be based largely on assumptions rather than concrete legal proof.

Grounds of the CBI’s Appeal

In a detailed 974-page appeal, the CBI has argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction at the charge-framing stage by conducting an elaborate analysis of the evidence — something typically reserved for a full trial.

The agency contends that at this preliminary stage, the court is only required to assess whether a prima facie case exists, not to weigh evidence in depth. It has alleged that the judge selectively examined portions of the prosecution’s case rather than considering the alleged conspiracy in its entirety.

The CBI has also objected to certain adverse remarks made by the judge against the investigating agency and the investigating officer, describing them as “unwarranted and incomprehensible.”

In its appeal, the agency maintains that the alleged conspiracy was conceived at a high political level and that structural changes to the policy were intentionally made to facilitate private wholesale operations for the benefit of specific companies.

What Lies Ahead

The CBI moved the Delhi High Court on the same day the discharge order was issued. The High Court is scheduled to hear the appeal on March 9.

If the High Court concludes that the trial court misapplied legal principles or overlooked sufficient grounds for framing charges, it may set aside the discharge order and direct that the matter proceed to trial. Conversely, if it upholds the lower court’s findings, the relief granted to the accused will remain in place.

The outcome of the High Court proceedings is likely to have significant political and legal ramifications, given the prominence of the individuals involved and the wider implications of the excise policy controversy.