A Delhi court on Friday discharged of corruption charges Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, Telangana Jagruthi founder K Kavitha, and 20 others accused by the Central Investigation Bureau in the liquor policy case.

In its 598-page order, the court criticised the central agency for its handling of the investigation and flagged several lapses, reported Live Law.

It said that Kejriwal and Sisodia were implicated without any cogent material and that there was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent behind the excise policy.

Advertisement

Here’s what the court said in its judgement:

  1. Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts noted that the case against Kejriwal was based on the statements of only one approver, Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy. The judge said that the statement was allegedly made in front of 10 to 12 witnesses, but “they have either not been examined or, if examined, have not been cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet”. This raises serious “concerns regarding the completeness and fairness of the investigation”, added the court.

  2. It said that the investigation did not begin with the identification of a specific crime and evidence. Instead, the agencies kept widening their scope, appearing to implicate more persons without fresh incriminating material at each stage. “This appears to be based on a preconceived assumption,” said the court.

  3. Regarding Sisodia, the judge said that the CBI had failed to establish any prima facie case against the former deputy chief minister. The attempt to link him to the alleged monetary transactions was based on “inference, not admissible proof”, Bar and Bench quoted the judge as saying. “If such a practice is permitted to pass without judicial scrutiny, it carries the grave potential of setting an unhealthy precedent,” Live Law quoted the judgement as stating.

  4. The judge also said that the use of the term “South Group” by investigating agencies was not a “legally cognisable classification”. It was arbitrary and unwarranted, the judge added. “It is equally significant that no comparable regional descriptor has been employed for the remaining accused persons,” Bar and Bench quoted him as saying. “The prosecution narrative does not speak of any ‘North Group’ or similar categorisation.” The investigating agencies had alleged that a so-called South Group, of which Kavitha was allegedly a part, paid Rs 100 crore to AAP leaders in exchange for favours related to the policy through a businessman.

  5. The court said that investigations by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate cannot be allowed to enter the “political arena” on allegations of excessive electoral spending by a political party, reported Live Law. Permitting this would lead to the “criminalisation of electoral competition” and arm the executive with “coercive instruments capable of influencing political outcomes”, it added. The judge said that this would erode the level-playing that is “at the heart of free and fair elections”.

  6. The judge further noted that once liberty is curtailed, it cannot be meaningfully restored by a subsequent acquittal. The passage of time cannot compensate for the loss of liberty because of pre-trial detention, he added. “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,” the court observed. “Any failure to maintain this balance is likely to undermine both the rule of law and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.”

  7. The court also said that the Enforcement Directorate making arrests and filing prosecution complaints in money laundering cases before the facts of a case are examined in the court “reveals a disturbing inversion of the statutory scheme”, Bar and Bench reported. The judge noted that once a person is charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, they are required to meet stringent conditions for bail. “This results in a situation where an individual is deprived of personal liberty on the strength of an allegation whose legal sustainability remains uncertain,” the legal news outlet quoted him as saying.

The CBI has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the verdict, PTI quoted unidentified officials as saying.

While Kejriwal spent around five months in jail in the case, Sisodia was imprisoned for 17 months.

Kejriwal, the Delhi chief minister at the time, had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in March 2024.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court granted him interim bail in the case. However, he remained in jail as he had been arrested by the CBI in the same case in June 2024.

He was eventually released from jail in September 2024 after the Supreme Court granted him bail in the case filed by the CBI.