A Delhi court today acquitted all 23 accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
In a detailed judgement running into nearly 600 pages, Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh dismantled the CBI case, citing procedural lapses, violation of constitutional principles and reliance on hearsay evidence.
In fact, the Court issued a scathing indictment of the CBI, holding that the probe was neither objective nor impartial.
Here is a summary of the Court's findings and how the case collapsed.
1. No manipulation of liquor policy
Judge Singh said that the Excise Policy was the outcome of a structured governmental process involving multiple departments, expert committees and cabinet-level approvals.
The Court said that there was no admissible material demonstrating that Sisodia or Kejriwal exercised their official authority with the intent to confer undue benefits or to participate in any criminal conspiracy.
It stressed that policy decisions, even if later withdrawn or criticised, cannot by themselves give rise to criminal liability unless supported by clear evidence of quid pro quo, personal gain, or misuse of office. It held that the prosecution failed to place any such material on record.
“The clauses incorporated in the policy cannot be traced to any document allegedly supplied by the so-called South Group. The record reflects deliberations at various levels, examination by the competent authorities, and a progressive development of the policy framework, culminating in approval by the Hon’ble LG. No material has been shown to suggest any prior agreement or meeting of minds indicative of a criminal conspiracy in the formulation of the policy,” the Court said.
2. Case against Kejriwal based on a singular approver statement
It was the CBI case that Kejriwal, in his capacity as the Chief Minister of Delhi, occupied the apex position and exercised overarching control over the criminal conspiracy relating to the formulation and implementation of the policy.
Judge Singh rejected the allegations outright. He noted that Kejriwal’s role features in the case only in the fourth supplementary chargesheet filed in July 2024 and the only principal material relied upon to implicate him is the statement of approver Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy.
The judge said that despite an alleged conversation occurring in the presence of public persons, none were examined, leaving the claim incapable of verification.
The Court ruled that mutual reliance between accomplice-like statements does not amount to legal corroboration.
“The allegation against A-18 rests primarily on a solitary line in the statement of PW-225 [Reddy], an accomplice-like witness, stating that A-17 [K Kavitha] would be contacting him. The said statement is alleged to have been made in the presence of 10 to 12 persons. Those persons were admittedly present; however, they have either not been examined or, if examined, have not been cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. The absence of such independent version raises serious concerns regarding the completeness and fairness of the investigation. Where direct witnesses are available, reliance on a tainted source cannot compensate for their non-production."
3. Approver statements unreliable, uncorroborated
The Court held that the prosecution’s case against certain accused, like Kejriwal, was built almost entirely on statements made by an approver, without any independent corroboration.
It noted that these statements (by one Raghav Magunta) amounted to inadmissible hearsay insofar as they were not supported by documentary evidence, financial trails, or testimony from independent witnesses.
The Court found that the CBI court found that the investigating agency treated the approver’s version as inherently truthful, without subjecting it to rigorous verification.
“In the considered view of this Court, the manner in which the investigating agency has proceeded, by repeatedly recording the statements of the approver without justification and over a prolonged duration, reflects an exercise of discretion that cannot be characterised as 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.
4. Case against Sisodia built on inferences
The CBI had alleged that Manish Sisodia, as Deputy Chief Minister holding the Excise portfolio, was the principal architect of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021–22 and the central controlling force behind its formulation and alleged conspiratorial implementation.
However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any prima facie case against Sisodia.
It found no evidence placing him in conspiratorial meetings, clandestine deliberations, or alleged cash transactions and no recovery, document, or financial trail linking him to any transfer of funds.
The attempt to connect him to the money movement through another accused was based on inference, not admissible proof, the Court said. It added that the Excise Policy was formulated through consultations involving the Lieutenant Governor and the Council of Ministers, following constitutional procedures.
A selective conspiracy allegation against Sisodia alone was legally untenable, with the record reflecting institutional deliberation rather than criminal intent, Judge Singh added.
While concluding the judgment, Judge Singh quoted Martin Luther King Jr that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He also referred to the Latin maxim “fiat justitia ruat caelum (let justice be done though the heavens may fall)”.
“These principles serve as a constant reminder that the judicial task is neither to secure a convenient outcome nor to endorse a dominant narrative, but to uphold the rule of law. It is only by remaining anchored to these ideals that the confidence of the citizen in the administration of justice is preserved. With that assurance, and conscious of this obligation, the file is directed to be consigned to the record room,” the Court said.
Additional Solicitor General and Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, Senior Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar Garg and counsels Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Shreya Dutt Imaan Khera and Dig Vijay Singh appeared for the CBI.
Arvind Kejriwal appeared through Senior Advocate N Hariharan with Mudit Jain, Mohd Irshad, Mohd Asgar Ali, Rudraksh Nakra, Ayush Goswami, Lakshya Aggarwal, Harjas Singh Gujral, Samta Sharma, Sona Singh, Vasudhra Raj Tyagi, Aman Akhtar, Arjun Singh Mandla, Vasundhara N, Punya Rekha Angora, Amaan Shreyas, Sana Singh and Mahima Malhotra.
Manish Sisodia was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John along advocates with Vivek Jain, Sadiq Noor, Rohit Nair and Mohd Irshad.
Durgesh Pathak was represented by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with Karan Sharma, Rajan Jain, Mohit Siwach, Harsh Gautam and Vignesh.
Kuldeep Singh was represented by advocates SS Rana Naveen Kumar and Abhishek Mahal while Narender Singh appeared through Pardeep Rana, Gagan Bhatnagar, Tushar Rohmetra and Vibhor Choudhary.
Vijay Nair was represented by Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana along with advocates Stuti Gujral Vrinda Bhandari Piyush Kumar Nishant Sharma Syed Miran Ahmad Vidushi Sabharwal Arjun V Harihar and Vipin Kumar
Abhishek Boinpally was represented by advocates Sumer Singh Boparai Surya Pratap Singh Abhilash Kumar Pathak Shubham Raj Anand and Sirhaan Seth.
Arun Ramchandra Pillai appeared through Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey with advocates Nitesh Rana, Joy Banerjee, Amrita Vatsa, Satyam Sharma, Aditi Singh, Aditya Narayan, Raksha Tripathi, Suyash Pandey, RB Siddhartha, Muskan Sharma, Yash Saxena, Samarth Panwar and Khushi Arora.
Mootha Gautam was represented by Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy with advocates Shivendra Dwivedi, Onmichon Ramrar, Lavkesh Bhambani, Bhumika Yadav and Anmol Gupta.
Sameer Mahandru was represented by advocates Dhruv Gupta, Anubhav Garg, and Yash Raj Mehran.
Amandeep Singh Dhall was represented by Adit S Pujari, Shaswat Sarin, Shaurya Mittal and Dhanya Visweswaran, while Arjun Pandey appeared through Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with Shivendra Dwivedi, Varisha Sharma and Onmichon Ramrar.
Butchibabu Gorantla was represented by Senior Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana along with Abhishek Singh, Talib Mustafa, Anmol Aggarwal, Ketan Kumar Roy, Vishvendra Tomar, Harsh Srivastava, Dikksha Ramnani and Chetan Nagpal.
Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar and Arvind Kumar Singh were represented by Rajat Bhardwaj and Dushyant Chaudhary.
Chanpreet Singh Rayat was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta with Shailendra Singh, Baani Khanna, Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani and Komal Thakkar.
K Kavitha was represented by P Mohit Rao and Eugene S Philomene.
Amit Arora was represented by Prabhav Ralli, Dev Vrat Arya, Samraat Saxena and Deeya Mittal.
Vinod Chauhan was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca M John along with Gagan Minocha, Tusharika Mattoo, Pravir and Shivani Sehrawat.
Ashish Mathur appeared through Harsh Bora, Sahil Ghai and Aekansh Agarwal, while P Sarath Chandra Reddy was represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Navlendu Kumar, Vivek Chandra Jaiswal, Sahil Yadav and Arpit Goel.
[Read Judgment]