BREAKING| Delhi High Court Stays Remarks Against Investigating Officers; Issues Notice On CBI's Plea Challenging Discharge Of Arvind Kejriwal and Others In Excise Policy Case

The Delhi High Court today issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others on a petition filed by the CBI challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case.

The Court also stayed the operation of the trial court's "scathing remarks" and the direction for a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s investigating officers, terming such observations "uncalled for" at this stage.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others in the Delhi excise policy case. This was followed by a trial court order which cleared all 23 accused of corruption charges related to the alleged liquor policy scam.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, "No one appears on behalf of respondents...The Court's attention was drawn to the order dated...It is also urged that some scathing remarks have been made against the investigation officers which at this stage was uncalled for, and therefore the operation of the order in that respect be stayed...I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer...Issue fresh notice through IO...I will ask the trial court to postpone the hearing of the PMLA case to a date after the hearing before this court."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the CBI.

Mehta submitted, "This is a petition challenging discharge order. This is one of the biggest scam in history of national capital, the biggest shame."

He contended that the trial court's order essentially functioned as an "acquittal without a trial." He argued that the judge incorrectly required collaborative evidence at the discharge stage, whereas the legal standard only requires the court to determine if a "triable case" exists based on suspicion.

Mehta emphasized that the credibility of witness statements and the need for corroboration of approver statements are matters for a full trial, not for a preliminary discharge hearing.

He highlighted its collection of forensic evidence, including emails and WhatsApp chats. The SGI noted that 164 witnesses had been examined, describing how bribes were paid and meetings were held. He specifically pointed to Vijay Nair as a key link who was allegedly in direct contact with political leaders to facilitate the conspiracy.

Mehta also criticized the speed and nature of the trial court's decision, noting that a 600-page judgment was delivered just 12 days after submissions concluded.

He argued that while speedy justice is a goal, it should not lead to a "miscarriage of justice" by dismissing meticulous evidence prematurely. 

He argued that the trial court’s discharge order fundamentally misapplied criminal law by requiring corroboration of approver statements at too early a stage.

He emphasized that under the law, an approver's testimony only requires corroboration during a full trial, where the witness can be cross-examined. Since the approvers in this case had already given statements before a magistrate without any claims of coercion, the SG argued their evidence should have been sufficient to proceed to trial.

He said, "I must tell your ladyship, all these notes were found in the mobile phones of the accused there is no finding on that by the trial court. We have placed on record a series of instances of destruction of evidence. 170 phones were destroyed...During the peak of covid when private aircraft were not permitted, the bribe givers came by private aircraft...We all know for what these aircrafts are used."

He then said, "The examination will have to take place at the time of trial...court says that no examination was taken place..."

He cited the statement of Dinesh Arora, which he claimed was corroborated by a Section 164 statement from Ashok Kaushik, the personal assistant to the alleged bribe-giver. According to the SG, this evidence was "brushed aside" by the trial judge.

The SG highlighted that incriminating notes were recovered directly from the mobile phones of the accused—a fact he claimed the trial court failed to address in its findings. He also raised the issue of widespread destruction of evidence, informing the High Court that approximately 170 mobile phones had been destroyed by those involved in the case.

Continuing the arguments, Mehta questioned the trial court's logic regarding the evidence of meetings between the accused. He pointed out that while the court accepted the CBI had established the physical presence of the parties at specific locations and their connection to the excise policy, it dismissed the evidence because the agency could not prove the exact contents of their private conversations. The SG argued that it is practically impossible for investigators to sit in on secret meetings, which is precisely why the testimony of an approver is vital.

Accordingly, the matter is now listed next week for furtehr hearing.

Background

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts discharged the accused after finding that the CBI failed to establish a prima facie case. The judge stated that the voluminous chargesheet contained numerous gaps and lacked support from witness statements or documents. Regarding Arvind Kejriwal, the court ruled he was implicated without any cogent material, while it found no evidence to charge Manish Sisodia.

The trial court’s order included a sharp critique of the CBI's investigation. The judge noted "misleading averments" in the chargesheet and observed that the evidence presented did not match the claims made by the agency. Consequently, the court ordered a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s Investigating Officer to address these lapses.

In its revision petition, the CBI argues that the trial court’s decision is legally flawed. The agency contends that the judge conducted a "mini-trial" by performing an in-depth evaluation of evidence that is typically reserved for a full trial, rather than the charge-framing stage. The CBI is seeking to overturn the discharge and stay the order for an inquiry against its officer.

On September 13, 2024, the Supreme Court had allowed Kejriwal's bail plea in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam. On September 5, the Bench had reserved order in the bail plea.

On August 14, the Court had refused to grant interim bail to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the corruption case related to the excise policy scam. The Bench had issued notice to the CBI on the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kejriwal against the Delhi High Court order upholding his arrest by the agency.

Earlier, on August 5, the Delhi High Court had denied interim bail to Kejriwal in the corruption case. The Court had pronounced the order, which was reserved on July 29. Earlier, on July 17, the Court reserved order in his plea challenging arrest in the case.

It is to be noted that on July 2, the Court had issued notice to the CBI in Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest. Thereafter, Kejriwal also moved a bail plea; in the same case, a notice was issued to the CBI on July 5.

Kejriwal was arrested by the CBI on June 26 from Tihar Jail, where he was already in judicial custody till July 3 in a PMLA case related to an excise policy scam. Initially, the AAP National convenor was remanded 3-day CBI remand by a Trial Court order dated June 26. Thereafter, Kejriwal had been initially sent to 14-day judicial custody, i.e. till July 12.

On August 27, 2024, the Supreme Court had also granted bail to K. Kavitha, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader and daughter of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi excise policy scam case. The Court had also granted bail to former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in the excise policy scam case.

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. [CRL.REV.P.: 134/2026]