CBI to challenge Kejriwal-Sisodia discharge in Delhi excise policy case in high court
The CBI will appeal the Rouse Avenue court’s discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others in the 2022 Delhi excise policy case, citing ignored aspects of the investigation. The verdict triggered emotional reactions from Kejriwal and party supporters.
New Delhi: The CBI will submit an appeal to the High Court challenging the order issued by the Rouse Avenue court on Friday, which acquitted former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, along with others, in connection with the 2022 Delhi excise policy case.
The agency added that several aspects of the investigation were either ignored or not adequately considered in the trial court’s judgment. The CBI had registered an FIR on August 17, 2022, against the then Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, excise officials, and liquor businessmen based on a complaint from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
The allegations included irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy, modification of provisions, extension of undue favours to licensees, waiver or reduction of licence fees, and extension of L-1 licences without approval.
Meanwhile, Arvind Kejriwal became emotional after being discharged by the Rouse Avenue Court in the excise policy case and broke down while addressing the media for the first time after the verdict.
Manish Sisodia was seen hugging Kejriwal, wiping his tears and consoling him as party supporters gathered around. Addressing reporters, Kejriwal said, “The way they kept repeating ‘Delhi excise scam’ and making allegations against us, today the court has dismissed the charges and discharged the accused. We always said that truth prevails and that we have faith in the Indian judicial system.”
He added, “I want to thank the judges for delivering the verdict. I have always believed that God is with us.”
Kejriwal further alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah orchestrated a major political conspiracy to weaken the AAP. “It was a completely bogus case. Television debates repeatedly portrayed me as corrupt,” he said.
Earlier in the day, the Delhi court refused to frame charges against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and others in the corruption case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam.
Allowing the discharge plea, the Rouse Avenue Court held that no sufficient evidence had emerged during the investigation to proceed against the accused and did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence, including criminal conspiracy. Both Kejriwal and Sisodia had earlier been arrested in connection with the liquor policy investigation but were granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2024.
The alleged scam relates to the Delhi government’s 2021-22 excise policy, which was subsequently withdrawn amid allegations of irregularities in licensing and pricing mechanisms. Central agencies had alleged that leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), including Kejriwal and Sisodia, accepted kickbacks from a cartel known as the ‘South Group’ in exchange for policy concessions benefiting select liquor licensees.
Investigators claimed that irregular implementation of the policy caused significant losses to the public exchequer and involved manipulation of licensing norms and exemptions. In September 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail to Kejriwal in the CBI corruption case while directing him to cooperate fully with trial proceedings and refrain from making public comments on the merits of the matter.
Earlier, the top court had also granted interim relief in the related money laundering proceedings, emphasising the primacy of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Manish Sisodia was granted bail by the apex court in August 2024 after nearly 17 months of incarceration, noting that the trial involving hundreds of witnesses and extensive documentary evidence was unlikely to conclude in the near future and prolonged detention would violate the right to a speedy trial.
