NEW DELHI — The Delhi High Court has issued a formal notice to former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others following an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This legal intervention challenges a lower court’s previous order that acquitted all 23 accused individuals in the controversial excise policy case. Justice has scheduled the next hearing for March 16, 2026, effectively reopening a legal chapter that many in the Aam Aadmi Party had considered closed.
In a massive 974-page petition, the CBI argued that the trial court’s decision was completely wrong and illegal. The federal agency contended that the lower court essentially conducted a premature mini-trial while evaluating the evidence rather than viewing the prosecution’s case in its entirety. The CBI maintains that it possesses significant evidence and witness statements proving the excise policy was designed on a “quid pro quo” basis to generate funds for the Goa elections. Crucially, the petition describes Kejriwal as the “kingpin” and the principal beneficiary of the alleged conspiracy, citing his leadership of both the government and the political party.
The appeal comes in response to a February 27, 2026, judgment by Special Judge Jitendra Singh at the Rouse Avenue Court, who had acquitted all 23 accused. In that ruling, the judge stated that the prosecution failed to prove any criminal intent or a larger conspiracy behind the policy. The lower court went as far as to label the CBI’s investigation as “pre-planned and choreographed,” even recommending a departmental inquiry against the lead investigating officers for their conduct during the probe.
However, the High Court has now stepped in to stay those scathing remarks and the departmental inquiry against the CBI officials. Furthermore, the court has directed the lower court to postpone all ongoing proceedings in the related money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) until the current petition by the CBI is resolved. This ensures that the two parallel investigations remain legally synchronized as the higher court reviews the validity of the mass acquittal.
