Rouse Avenue Court discharged Arvind Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy case on Friday, citing lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the CBI probe
New Delhi: Yesterday came a key verdict in Delhi excise policy controversy. The special court at Rouse Avenue discharged AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, BRS leader K. Kavitha and 20 others, holding that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to present sufficient material to frame charges. The court’s order, delivered by Special Judge Jitendra Singh, criticised the investigation and directed an inquiry into the conduct of the “erring investigating officer,” observing that the probe appeared “premeditated and choreographed.” The CBI has indicated it will challenge the decision before the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Delhi Excise Policy Case
The Delhi excise policy case dates back to an FIR registered by the CBI in 2022. The FIR was based on a complaint from the Delhi Chief Secretary, who flagged alleged procedural irregularities and potential financial loss in the formulation of the 2021–22 excise policy.
The policy replaced the earlier government-controlled retail model with a licence-based regime aimed at increasing competition and boosting revenue. However, reports emerged alleging that the policy was drafted to favour certain private liquor licensees. The CBI alleged that lower licence fees, exemptions, and changes in profit margins gave undue advantage to select players. The agency also suspected that approximately ₹100 crore was paid by third parties to influence the policy.
The matter was simultaneously investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under money laundering provisions. Manish Sisodia, who was in charge of the excise department when the policy was framed, was arrested by the CBI in early 2023. Arvind Kejriwal was later arrested in connection with the ED’s money laundering case linked to the same policy.
The Delhi government eventually withdrew the policy amid mounting political and legal scrutiny and the trial was going on in the court since then.
Why Kejriwal was discharged: Court’s key findings
The central allegation was that the government increased the wholesale margin from 5% to 12% to facilitate illegal payments. However, the court noted that the earlier draft policy fixed 5% as a minimum margin, not a maximum. There was no upper cap in the previous framework. According to the court, introducing a 12% ceiling did not automatically establish criminal intent. The prosecution failed to produce documents showing a direct link between the margin revision and any illegal benefit.
The court also scrutinised the financial theory presented by the CBI. The agency argued that 6% out of the 12% margin was paid as bribes. During proceedings, figures were cited suggesting that on high-volume products such as beer, a 12% margin translated to around ₹54 per case. Distribution costs were said to be significantly higher. The court questioned how wholesalers could sustain such kickbacks without documentary proof of a money trail. It held that no reliable accounting evidence had been produced to substantiate the alleged diversion of funds.
Another key allegation concerned the use of alleged kickback funds for election campaigning in Goa. The prosecution relied partly on seized receipts where a witness claimed that three zeros had to be added to the written amounts to reflect the real figures. The court found inconsistencies between these calculations and the amounts cited in the charge sheet. It observed that loose sheets or pencil-written slips, without corroboration, could not be treated as legally valid books of account. The court said the records appeared selectively presented and lacked evidentiary strength.
The prosecution also suggested that the policy was framed in secrecy. However, court records showed consultations with the Lieutenant Governor and incorporation of multiple suggestions during drafting. The judge concluded that the material reflected an institutional decision-making process rather than proof of a criminal conspiracy.
The credibility of the prosecution’s approver came under scrutiny as well. The court noted variations in the witness’s statements over time. In the absence of independent corroboration, the testimony did not meet the legal standard required to frame charges.
Legally, the discharge means the court found insufficient grounds to proceed to trial based on the evidence presented. It does not amount to a full exoneration after trial but reflects the court’s assessment that the prosecution’s material did not meet the minimum standard required to frame charges. The CBI’s proposed appeal before the Delhi High Court will now determine whether the discharge order withstands appellate scrutiny.
Also read: ‘Shocked Again’: Mamata Banerjee Slams PM Modi Over ‘Swami’ Reference to Ramakrishna
[Prateeksha Thakur] is a seasoned journalist known for [her] sharp analysis and clear communication. At Newsisland, [she] focus on political reporting, offering readers a nuanced understanding of complex issues.
