Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have been discharged in the Delhi excise policy case, with the court ruling that the CBI failed to prove the charges against them.
The court, flagging lack of evidence against Kejriwal, said serious allegations need to be supported with material, as the attribution of a central conspiratorial role cannot be sustained without evidence. Public confidence in the office is affected if it is found that the prosecution’s claims were unsupported by material, the court noted.
Discharging Sisodia, the Delhi court said the prosecution’s case did not survive judicial scrutiny and found no material to suggest any criminal intent on Sisodia’s part. It noted that when the documents were read together with the statements on record, they reflected administrative deliberations rather than any wrongdoing.
The court further held that the process leading to the formulation of the excise policy showed consultation at multiple levels, with documents indicating institutional deliberation.
"The prosecution’s theory of an overarching conspiracy failed to find force and that the narrative suffered from internal contradictions," the court said.
A Delhi court also raised serious questions over the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) probe in the Delhi Excise Policy case while discharging AAP leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
The court made strong remarks against the CBI, questioning its probe into the high-profile case, which has arguably contributed to the AAP’s downfall in the national capital.
The court questioned why certain statements and opinions were not included in the investigation records, indicating possible gaps in the manner in which the probe was conducted. It also sought clarity on how the CBI claimed that the opinions of three legal experts on the excise policy supported its case, signalling doubts over the agency’s interpretation of the material.
Further, the court also objected to the use of the term “South Group” by the prosecution, suggesting that the expression lacked clarity and proper evidentiary basis in the case record.
