Delhi Court to Hear Case Against Top Politicians
The Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear the Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the discharge of prominent politicians Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia on March 9. The agency is challenging a lower court's decision to drop charges in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case.
The case revolves around the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, which ended the government's dominance in the liquor business, opening it up to private companies. The policy was scrapped in July 2022 after Delhi's Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena recommended a CBI probe into alleged irregularities. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government manipulated the policy to favor certain private liquor dealers in exchange for kickbacks. The agency claimed the policy was designed with deliberate loopholes to facilitate monopolization and cartelization of the liquor trade in the city. In a detailed 598-page judgment on February 27, 2026, a special court discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia. The judge ruled that the CBI's case was based on "surmises, conjectures and inferential leaps" and failed to establish a prima facie case. The lower court's order was highly critical of the investigation, stating the CBI tried to "weave a conspiracy narrative" without concrete evidence. It found no material linking Kejriwal to the alleged conspiracy and no evidence of criminal intent on the part of Sisodia. The judge even recommended a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer. The CBI swiftly filed a 974-page revision petition in the Delhi High Court, calling the trial court's order "patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face". The agency argues the judge conducted a "mini-trial" instead of determining if there was sufficient material to frame charges. The agency maintains that the trial court judge made "unduly harsh" observations based on an incorrect understanding of law and facts. The CBI's plea contends that the judge's piecemeal appreciation of evidence led to the erroneous discharge of the accused.
