No Prima Facie Evidence Of Conspiracy, Bribery Or Quid Pro Quo Against Kejriwal And 22 Co-Accused; Delhi Court Discharges All In Excise Policy Case
Safiya Malik
A Delhi court on Friday discharged Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy CM Manish Sisodia, Telangana Jagruthi founder K. Kavitha, and 20 others in the corruption case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam.
In a sharply critical 598-page order, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts faulted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for multiple shortcomings in its probe and highlighted several investigative lapses.
The court said the prosecution did not place any material to show that Kejriwal (listed as accused no. 18) either received a bribe or helped facilitate the receipt of bribe money. It noted that the claims against him were primarily drawn from statements of co-accused and witnesses, but lacked independent corroboration tying him to any criminal conspiracy. The judge further held that simply approving policy decisions—without proof of dishonest intent or quid pro quo—cannot amount to criminal liability. The order also recorded that there was no documentary or electronic evidence demonstrating any pecuniary benefit to Kejriwal from the alleged scam.
“In a developing economy, policy changes are routine and often necessary for increasing revenue, improving regulatory frameworks, or advancing public welfare objectives...The mere circumstance that a particular policy does not yield the expected outcomes, or that private participants lawfully earn profits under such policy, cannot, without more, justify criminal prosecution...economic and administrative decisions taken in good faith cannot be criminalised in the absence of clear prima facie material disclosing mala fides, quid pro quo, or abuse of office,” the Court held.
The judge observed that the prosecution failed to meet even the minimum standard of prima facie suspicion—let alone the “grave suspicion” required under established criminal law principles to proceed against the accused. The court added that, as presented by the CBI, the excise policy case could not withstand judicial scrutiny and was effectively discredited.
“While it is to the credit of the investigating agency that it has placed reliance upon the statement of its own witnesses even when such evidence runs contrary to the prosecution's foundational allegations, the cumulative effect of that very evidence demolishes, rather than supports, the case sought to be built,” the Court said.
It further held that forcing the accused to undergo a full criminal trial without legally admissible material linking them to the alleged offences would not serve justice, and would instead amount to a miscarriage of justice and abuse of process—contrary to fairness and the rule of law.
Beyond pointing out the allegedly tainted nature of some investigative material, the court recommended initiating departmental proceedings against the investigating officer for naming Kuldeep Singh as an accused without supporting material. The judge said accountability was necessary to protect institutional credibility.
“To permit such conduct to pass without consequence would erode public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and would amount to tacit judicial approval of investigative impropriety, an outcome which the rule of law does not permit,” the Court said.
On Sisodia, the court held there was no material indicating any demand for, or acceptance of, illegal gratification. It also said the CBI failed to establish any direct or indirect financial trail connecting him to alleged bribe transactions. The judge noted that the excise policy decisions were made collectively, involving multiple officials and stakeholders, and found nothing to suggest Sisodia acted alone or with criminal intent.
While conspiracy allegations were raised, the court said there was no concrete material demonstrating any “meeting of minds” with co-accused for unlawful gain. It reiterated that participation in policy-making alone cannot be treated as proof of conspiracy. At the charge stage, the court said, “strong suspicion” must be supported by tangible material—something it found missing in Sisodia’s case.
The order said the investigation reflected a basic failure to properly assess evidence and draw lawful inferences from documents on record, rendering the prosecution “legally infirm” and unsustainable. “Stated differently, this Court records that the theory of an overarching conspiracy, so emphatically projected, stands completely dismantled when tested against the evidentiary record,” the court said.
The court described the liquor policy as the result of a consultative and deliberative exercise carried out after engagement with stakeholders and in line with prescribed legal procedure. It noted that although there was no constitutional or statutory requirement to seek suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings showed that such inputs were sought, examined, and incorporated—supporting the procedural integrity of the policy process.
“In the absence of policy or demonstrably unlawful implementation, the prosecution theory is reduced to conjecture. Private persons who sought to derive commercial advantage from a policy validly framed and lawfully implemented, without any established violation of policy conditions or statutory prohibitions, cannot be compelled to face the rigours of criminal prosecution. This Court finds no apparent breach of restrictions relating to “related entities” or any other policy condition which could, by itself, attract criminal liability,” the Court said.
The judge also remarked that the CBI appeared to have followed a “predetermined trajectory,” implicating nearly everyone connected to the policy’s framing or implementation to create an “illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative.” It added that attempts to link the allegations to the Goa Assembly elections relied more on inference and assumption than on legally sustainable material.
The court said the chargesheet narrative was built largely on conjecture and unsupported inferential leaps. It cautioned that allowing such methods—particularly repeatedly re-recording an approver’s statements over a long period—could set an unhealthy precedent.
“If such a practice is permitted to pass without judicial scrutiny, it carries the grave potential of setting an unhealthy precedent, effectively normalising a method whereby an investigating agency, after securing pardon on the professed premise of a “full and true disclosure”, continues to repeatedly re-record statements of the approver over an extended period, ostensibly to fill gaps, improve the prosecution narrative, implicate additional accused, or artificially weave missing links in the chain of circumstances.”
The judge added that when investigative discretion is used in a way that undermines the presumption of innocence or weakens the sanctity of a court-granted pardon, the process becomes punitive—something impermissible in a constitutional democracy. The order said the repeated recording of the approver’s statements without justification over a prolonged period could not be considered fair or reasonable.
“If left unchecked, such conduct risks converting the exceptional mechanism of pardon into an instrument for narrative construction rather than truth discovery, thereby causing serious prejudice to the accused and eroding confidence in the criminal justice process,” the Court said.
The court also observed that once liberty is curtailed, it cannot truly be restored by a later acquittal, and time cannot compensate for losses caused by unwarranted pre-trial detention. It called for a framework that balances the state’s interest in investigating economic offences with an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty, while stressing that the legitimacy of stringent legal regimes depends on fair and proportionate application.
“Ultimately, the legitimacy of the PMLA regime depends not merely on the severity of its provisions, but on their fair, proportionate, and constitutionally informed application. The balance between the power of the investigating agency and the right to life and personal liberty is not a matter of legislative grace, but a constitutional command. Any failure to maintain this balance is likely to undermine both the rule of law and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice,” the Court said.
The judge discharged all 23 accused in the matter: Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam, Sameer Mahendru, Manish Sisodia, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh, K. Kavitha, Arvind Kejriwal, Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur and Sarath Reddy.
