New Delhi: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has challenged the special court order that discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the liquor excise policy case, terming the judgment “patently illegal” and “perverse.”
In a detailed 974-page petition submitted to the Delhi High Court, the agency alleged that the Special Judge had conducted a fragmented assessment of the prosecution’s evidence, “dealing with separate limbs of conspiracy in isolation rather than cumulatively evaluating the actions of the accused.”
CBI Criticises Special Court Ruling
The petition contends that the order suffers from “errors apparent on the face,” is based on a “misreading” of facts, and disregards established Supreme Court principles regarding the stage at which charges are to be framed. The CBI argued that the Special Judge’s evaluation ignored the cumulative nature of the alleged conspiracy to monetise the excise policy.
“The Impugned Order is patently illegal, perverse and suffers from errors apparent on the face… leading to passing of adverse remarks against the investigating agency and the investigating officer, all of which are unwarranted and incomprehensible,” the petition stated.
The agency further alleged that the observations in the discharge order demonstrate that the Special Judge “lacks basic understanding of the prosecution case as a whole and the corresponding law at the stage of charge.”
Discharge of Kejriwal and Others
On Friday, Special Judge Jitendra Singh had discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, and 21 other accused, including Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha, saying there was no cogent evidence against them. The court also criticised the CBI’s investigation, noting the absence of a prima facie case.
Reacting swiftly, the CBI filed an urgent revision petition to the High Court. The matter is scheduled for hearing on March 9.
Alleged Misreading of Evidence
The central agency stressed that while individual actions of the accused “may not be per se indicative,” the conspiracy becomes evident when their roles are assessed collectively. The CBI said the Special Judge, however, had focused on minor contradictions and “formulated his own understanding” of the case, leading to the wrongful discharge of high-profile political figures.
The petition also highlighted that the order contained “incorrect findings on the law of approvers, evidentiary value of material” and was “in teeth of the dictum” established by the Supreme Court for framing charges.
The CBI’s petition underscores the agency’s stance that the special court’s judgment overlooked substantial evidence and mischaracterised the investigation, potentially undermining a case alleging corruption at senior executive levels.
The Delhi High Court will now decide whether to entertain the CBI’s plea and revisit the discharge order, a development that could have major political and legal ramifications.
