The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notices to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K. Kavitha and 20 other accused in connection with the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, while hearing a revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging their discharge by a trial court. 

The High Court also stayed the operation of the trial court’s critical remarks against the investigating agency and its officers, including the direction for a departmental inquiry against the Investigating Officer.

The matter came up before a Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, which noted that no one appeared on behalf of the respondents when the case was taken up. 

The Court observed that the trial court had made “scathing remarks” against the investigating officers at a stage where such observations were not warranted. Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the operation of those remarks be stayed for the time being. The Bench also directed that fresh notice be served on the respondents through the Investigating Officer and instructed the trial court to defer proceedings in the related money laundering case until after the High Court hears the matter.

Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly criticized the trial court’s discharge order, describing the alleged excise policy scam as “one of the biggest scandals in the history of the national capital.” He argued that the trial court’s decision effectively amounted to an “acquittal without trial,” as it undertook an extensive evaluation of evidence that should ordinarily occur only during the course of a full trial.

Mehta contended that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard while considering the discharge application. According to him, at the stage of framing charges or considering discharge, the court only needs to determine whether a prima facie or triable case exists based on suspicion arising from the material placed on record. He argued that the trial judge had instead insisted on corroboration of approver statements and undertaken a detailed assessment of witness credibility—an exercise that should take place only after witnesses are examined and cross-examined during trial.

Highlighting the evidence gathered during the investigation, Mehta told the court that the CBI had examined 164 witnesses who allegedly described the payment of bribes and meetings between the accused persons in relation to the excise policy. He pointed to Vijay Nair as a key intermediary who allegedly maintained direct communication with political leaders as part of the conspiracy. The Solicitor General also referred to forensic evidence collected by the agency, including emails, WhatsApp messages, and digital notes recovered from the mobile phones of certain accused.

The SG further informed the Court that investigators had uncovered instances of destruction of evidence, claiming that nearly 170 mobile phones were allegedly destroyed by individuals connected with the case. He also referred to travel records and alleged meetings between the accused and purported bribe-givers, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing these circumstances merely because the prosecution could not establish the precise contents of private conversations.

During the hearing, Mehta cited the statement of businessman Dinesh Arora and claimed it was corroborated by a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Ashok Kaushik, who allegedly served as a personal assistant to one of the alleged bribe givers. According to the CBI, this corroborative material had been improperly disregarded by the trial court while ordering the discharge of the accused.

Another point raised by the CBI related to the speed with which the trial court delivered its judgment. Mehta noted that the detailed 600-page order was pronounced within 12 days after arguments concluded. While acknowledging the importance of speedy justice, he cautioned that haste should not lead to a miscarriage of justice by prematurely rejecting evidence collected through a lengthy investigation.

The CBI’s revision petition challenges the order passed by Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts, who had discharged all 23 accused in the case. In his order, the Special Judge had held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that the voluminous chargesheet contained significant gaps. The court had also observed that several allegations made by the agency were not supported by documentary evidence or witness statements.

In particular, the trial court had held that Arvind Kejriwal appeared to have been implicated without sufficient material, while finding no evidence to frame charges against Manish Sisodia. The order also included sharp criticism of the CBI’s investigation, noting what the judge described as “misleading averments” in the chargesheet and discrepancies between the agency’s claims and the supporting evidence. Based on these observations, the court had directed that a departmental inquiry be initiated against the Investigating Officer.

In response, the CBI has argued before the High Court that the trial court’s decision effectively amounted to conducting a “mini-trial” at the discharge stage by engaging in an exhaustive evaluation of evidence. The agency maintains that such detailed scrutiny is legally inappropriate before the commencement of a full trial.

The excise policy case has already witnessed multiple proceedings before higher courts. In September 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam. Earlier that year, the apex court had also granted bail to Manish Sisodia and K. Kavitha, who were arrested by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate during the course of the investigation.

Kejriwal had been arrested by the CBI on June 26, 2024, from Tihar Jail, where he was already lodged in judicial custody in a related money-laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The trial court initially granted three days of CBI custody before sending him to judicial custody.

The High Court has now listed the matter for further hearing next week.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Others

Read More: CESTAT Allows CENVAT Credit on Business Support and Management Consultancy Services to Manufacturer