February 28, 2026 : In a major development on February 27, 2026, the Rouse Avenue Court in New Delhi discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 other accused in the corruption case linked to the now-scrapped 2021–22 Delhi Excise Policy.
Special Judge Jitender Singh, hearing the matter initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), held that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient material to establish allegations of criminal conspiracy or wrongdoing in the formulation of the policy. The court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against any of the 23 accused named in the chargesheet.
Apart from Kejriwal and Sisodia, those discharged include Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K. Kavitha and Aam Aadmi Party leaders Vijay Nair and Durgesh Pathak.
Court Finds No Evidence of Criminal Conspiracy
The court observed that the CBI’s theory of an overarching conspiracy rested largely on conjecture. It noted that the material placed on record, when read along with witness statements, pointed to institutional and administrative deliberations at various levels rather than a criminal plot or illegal kickback arrangement.
The judge emphasized that the policy formulation process reflected consultations and decision-making within the administrative framework. The thousands of pages in the chargesheet, the court said, contained significant gaps and assertions not adequately supported by documentary evidence or witness testimony.
In a pointed remark, the court stated that serious allegations against public functionaries must be backed by cogent and reliable material. It cautioned that unsubstantiated claims can erode public confidence in constitutional offices and the justice system.
Questions Raised on Investigation and Use of Approvers
The court also questioned the CBI’s use of the term “South Group” to describe an alleged cartel, observing that the label lacked a firm evidentiary basis and risked being prejudicial.
A key issue in the judgment was the agency’s reliance on statements of approvers to fill gaps in the investigation. The court underlined that pardoning accused persons solely to use their testimony against others, without independent corroboration, raises concerns under constitutional safeguards.
In a rare step, the judge recommended a departmental inquiry against certain CBI officials for naming public servant Kuldeep Singh as the primary accused without sufficient incriminating material.
The order also flagged inconsistencies in the agency’s stance regarding individuals holding constitutional posts, reiterating that such serious implications must rest on solid evidence in order to uphold the rule of law.
Background: From Policy Rollback to Arrests
The controversy dates back to July 2022, when the Delhi Chief Secretary reported alleged irregularities in the excise policy. Following this, Lieutenant Governor V. K. Saxena recommended a CBI probe.
Investigative agencies alleged that the policy was designed to benefit private liquor traders in exchange for ₹100 crore in kickbacks, allegedly routed to the Aam Aadmi Party for use in the Goa Assembly elections. These allegations led to the arrest and prolonged incarceration of several senior AAP leaders.
Sisodia spent around 17 months in jail before securing bail from the Supreme Court in August 2024. Kejriwal remained in custody for 156 days across two spells before being granted bail in September 2024.
Earlier, in July 2024, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta granted interim bail to Kejriwal while referring questions on the necessity and legality of his arrest to a larger bench. The court observed that judicial review extends to arrests made under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and stressed that stringent arrest conditions are meant to guard against arbitrary exercise of power. While noting at that stage that the Enforcement Directorate had recorded “reasons to believe,” the bench reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty remains paramount.
Political Reactions and What Lies Ahead
Reacting to the discharge order, Kejriwal described the case as the “biggest political conspiracy in independent India” aimed at dismantling the Aam Aadmi Party. He said the verdict vindicated his claim of being “kattar imaandar” and accused central agencies of being misused for political purposes.
Sisodia termed the ruling a victory for truth and expressed faith in constitutional safeguards that protect citizens against arbitrary prosecution.
The AAP’s legal team indicated that the discharge in the CBI case could have a bearing on the related money laundering proceedings being pursued by the Enforcement Directorate, as the predicate offence has now failed to survive judicial scrutiny at the trial stage.
However, the matter is unlikely to end here. The CBI has announced that it will challenge the discharge order before the Delhi High Court.
