Why a court held CBI’s corruption case against Kejriwal was so flimsy it could not even go to trial

On Friday, a Delhi court discharged Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, as well as 21 other politicians, businesspersons and bureaucrats accused by the Central Investigation Bureau in the Delhi excise policy case. The court said that the case was so weak, there was not enough cogent material to go to trial.

The excise policy referred to laws to reform the state’s retail liquor policy put in place in 2021 by Delhi government, run at the time by Aam Aadmi Party.

The Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that the Aam Aadmi Party government increased the commission for wholesalers from 5% to 12%. This allegedly facilitated the receipt of bribes from wholesalers who had a substantial market share and turnover.

Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal spent around five months in jail in two periods. Deputy Chief Minister Sisodia was in jail for around 17 months before securing bail.

On Friday, the detailed 598-page verdict by special judge Jitendra Singh stated that after an “exhaustive and painstaking examination” of the record over more than two months, the prosecution’s case did not disclose even the “threshold of a prima facie suspicion,” let alone the required “grave suspicion” to proceed further.

The excise policy case, as sought to be projected by the Central Bureau of Investigation, is “wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stands discredited in its entirety”, the judge stated.

The judge said that forcing the accused persons to undergo a full criminal trial without any legally admissible evidence linking them to the alleged offences would not serve the interests of justice. Instead, it would amount to a clear miscarriage of justice and misuse of the criminal process.

The court criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation for implicating Kejriwal and Sisodia without cogent material, noting that the chargesheet contained major gaps and lacked support from witnesses. It also said it would recommend a departmental inquiry against officials for making public servant Kuldeep Singh, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise as the primary accused.

The judge discharged all 23 people accused in the case.

In criminal law, a discharge means that a court has decided there is not enough evidence to proceed with a trial, so the accused person is released from the case.

Alleged violations

The case stemmed from allegations inquired into by the CBI regarding Delhi’s excise policy, which was introduced in 2021 and scrapped in 2022.

In July 2022, Delhi Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar reported alleged procedural violations in the liquor policy to Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, who recommended a Central Bureau of Investigation probe.

In 2023, the investigation intensified with supplementary chargesheets and the CBI’s arrest of Sisodia, the Delhi deputy chief minister in February. In 2024, Arvind Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on March 21 after the Delhi High Court declined to offer him protection.

He was granted bail by the Supreme Court of India in September and resigned as chief minister shortly after.

The agency alleged that there were irregularities in how the policy had been drafted and implemented, claiming that certain private players were given undue advantages.

According to the prosecution’s theory, public officials and private individuals had entered into a conspiracy to manipulate the policy in favour of selected liquor businesses.

Kejriwal, Sisodia and other accused were named as part of this broader conspiracy. Investigators relied on documents, witness statements, and circumstantial material to argue that there was sufficient ground to proceed with criminal charges.

But the accused persons contended that there was no direct evidence linking them to any illegal acts: they said that the prosecution’s case was built largely on assumptions rather than concrete facts.

The court’s task was not to decide guilt or innocence, which happens only after a full trial, but to answer a narrower question: was there enough material to even begin a trial?

Lack of direct evidence

A central reason for the discharge was the absence of any direct material linking Kejriwal and Sisodia to the alleged criminal conspiracy.

The court found that the prosecution failed to place any evidence showing that Kejriwal either received or facilitated the receipt of bribe money.

The allegations against him rested largely on statements of co-accused and witnesses, but the court noted a “complete absence of independent corroboration connecting him to any conspiracy”.

The court further observed that the prosecution had not produced “any documentary or electronic material” establishing that Kejriwal derived “any pecuniary [financial] advantage” from the alleged scam.

Similarly, in relation to Sisodia, the court held that there was “no evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification” and no “financial trail linking him directly or indirectly to any alleged bribe transactions”.

In this case, the court said the investigation relied very heavily on the version given by an approver rather than independently checking whether what he said was supported by documents, financial records, or other witnesses' testimony.

An approver in criminal law refers to someone who was allegedly involved in the crime but agrees to turn witness for the prosecution in exchange for a lighter sentence.

The judge noted that investigators appeared to treat the approver’s statement as automatically truthful, rather than testing it through corroboration, which is a basic requirement in criminal law.

There were “no bank records, transaction proofs, or reliable documentary evidence” that confirmed the alleged flow of money. Because of this, the judge said the prosecution relied more on “assumptions than verifiable proof”.

It recorded that “no document or material has been produced which shows that these individuals participated in any criminal conspiracy or derived any illegal benefit”.

No dishonest intent, no ‘mens rea’

The court placed significant emphasis on the absence of dishonest intent, which is a necessary ingredient in offences relating to corruption and conspiracy.

It held that “mere approval or participation in policy decisions”, without evidence of mala fide intent or “quid pro quo”, cannot attract criminal liability.

The judge noted that the excise policy decisions were taken through a collective consultative process involving several stakeholders and officials. There was no material indicating that Sisodia acted unilaterally or with criminal intent, nor was there evidence of any “meeting of minds” with co-accused for illegal gain.

“In a developing economy, policy changes are routine and often necessary for increasing revenue, improving regulatory frameworks, or advancing public welfare objectives,” the court held. “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 made in good faith cannot be treated as crimes without clear evidence of bad intent, illegal benefit, or misuse of power, the court said.

The court concluded that there was no material indicating “wrongful gain or deliberate wrongdoing” and that, without proof of intent, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not satisfied.

Reliance on speculation

Another major finding was that the prosecution's case rested largely on “surmises, conjectures, and inferential leaps” rather than concrete evidence. The court repeatedly highlighted that the allegations were based on assumptions drawn from administrative decisions rather than verifiable material.

It held that the prosecution had failed to disclose even the threshold of a prima facie suspicion, far less the “grave suspicion” required to proceed to trial under settled criminal law principles. The court observed that the case, as projected by the CBI, was unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.

“The cumulative effect of that very evidence demolishes, rather than supports, the case sought to be built,” it held. “Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof at even a prima facie stage.”

CBI pulled up

In harsh criticism of the Central Bureau Investigation, the judge said the agency “connected scattered facts to fit a pre-decided story”.

“The investigation appears to have proceeded on a predetermined trajectory, implicating virtually every person associated with the formulation or implementation of the policy in order to lend an illusion of depth and credibility to an otherwise fragile narrative,” he said.

The judge also criticised attempts to link the alleged irregularities to election activities, stating that these claims were mostly based on “speculation rather than on legally sustainable material”.

Protection of liberty and fairness

The court held that compelling the accused to undergo a full criminal trial in the absence of legally admissible material would constitute a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the criminal process.

“Liberty, once curtailed, cannot be meaningfully restored by a subsequent acquittal, nor can the passage of time compensate for the loss occasioned by unwarranted pre-trial detention,” it held.

The court stressed the need to maintain a “constitutional balance between investigative powers and individual rights”, noting that failure to do so undermines the “rule of law and public confidence” in the justice system.