Delhi Excise Policy Case: Court Raps CBI, Identifies Lapses in Probe

Former Delhi chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo Arvind Kejriwal, senior party leader and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, along with 21 others accused in the Delhi excise policy case, were discharged by a Rouse Avenue Court on Friday. 

The order, which was delivered by special judge Jitendra Singh of the court, refused to take cognisance of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) chargesheet in the case, pointing out a number of lapses on the investigating agency’s part in a strongly worded and lengthy, almost 600-page, judgment.

The court raised serious concerns over the manner in which the CBI conducted the probe in the Delhi excise policy case, and noted that the investigation suffered from structural inconsistencies, selective reliance on witnesses, suppression of concerns, and constitutional overreach. The court’s findings came while evaluating whether charges could be framed against several accused, including Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and others.

Lapses Identified In Court Order

Investigation Began Without Identifying Offence Ingredients

In one of its most significant observations, the court held that the investigation did not begin with the identification of essential ingredients of any criminal offence. Instead, it noted that the probe altered its focus mid-course and expanded in scope without fresh incriminating material at each stage.

The judge observed that rather than being offence-driven, the investigation appeared to proceed on a preconceived assumption of “proceeds of crime,” widening its net progressively from vendors and intermediaries to political functionaries and eventually national leadership.

“Calculated and Sustained Assault” on Fair Investigation

The court used unusually strong language, remarking that the investigation, far from conforming to the discipline of a fair probe, disclosed a “calculated and sustained assault on the foundational tenets of the rule of law”.

It added that the methodology adopted reversed the settled legal sequence and risked converting criminal investigation into an instrument of overreach.

Selective Treatment of Angadiyas, Reliance on Uncorroborated Statements

A particularly troubling feature identified by the court was the treatment of angadiyas (cash couriers). Individuals who admitted operating systematic cash-movement networks were not accused but were converted into prosecution witnesses.

Their largely uncorroborated statements were then used to implicate others higher in the alleged chain, which, the court noted, weakened the evidentiary foundation and indicated a narrative-driven probe.

In multiple instances, the court found that key allegations rested solely on uncorroborated statements of witnesses without independent documentary evidence or financial trail. It reiterated that one accomplice cannot legally corroborate another and held that such mutual reliance does not amount to valid corroboration.

Contradictory Prosecution Theory

The court found internal inconsistencies in the prosecution’s own narrative regarding alleged benefits extended to certain entities. It noted that two diametrically opposite positions taken by the prosecution materially weakened the conspiracy theory.

Further, the actual implementation of the policy did not support the theory of a pre-planned conspiracy, as entities allegedly favoured faced repeated regulatory hurdles and even withdrew applications.

Approver’s “Evolving” Statements

The court expressed grave concern over the handling of the approver’s testimony. It noted that the approver was examined multiple times over more than a year, introducing fresh allegations at later stages to rope in additional individuals.

The court observed that statements of the approver, inherently suspect in law, were treated as unimpeachable truth and became the backbone of the prosecution's case. It warned that repeated recording of evolving statements diluted the premise on which the pardon was granted.

Suspect and Witness at the Same Time

In another sharp rebuke, the court criticised the CBI for placing an individual in the “suspect” column while simultaneously citing the same person as a prosecution witness.

The court termed this a “self-contradictory stance” and a “conscious and calculated stratagem” to keep prosecutorial options open in case the case failed under judicial scrutiny. It even recommended departmental proceedings against the investigating officer in one instance.

Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses

The order records that independent witnesses present during alleged crucial conversations were not examined, creating serious gaps in the prosecution's case. In the absence of such direct evidence, the court held that the case rested on legally insufficient material.

Withholding and Misclassification of Documents

The court found fault with the manner in which legal opinions and documents were placed on record. Material described as “vital” was embedded within voluminous electronic dumps instead of being distinctly filed as relied-upon documents.

It warned that placing potentially exculpatory material in the “unrelied” category without recorded reasons undermines fairness and risks selective presentation of evidence.

Ignoring Denial of Sanction

The court also highlighted that where competent authorities declined sanction to prosecute certain public servants, the CBI did not challenge those refusals. It was observed that such a non-challenge has serious legal consequences and amounts to acceptance of the findings of the competent authority.

Straying into Election Commission’s Domain

The court held that by scrutinising campaign logistics and election expenditure, the investigating agency strayed into a domain constitutionally reserved for the Election Commission of India. Such an approach, it warned, risked chilling legitimate political participation and blurred constitutional boundaries.

“No Foundational Suspicion”

After examining the statements of all witnesses sequentially, the court concluded that there was a “conspicuous absence” of any fact giving rise even to foundational suspicion, much less a prima facie case. It found that the contemporaneous administrative record reflected adherence to established procedures and safeguards.

The Delhi Excise Policy Case

The case refers to alleged corruption in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, brought by the then AAP government and later scrapped. An FIR was registered by the CBI in August 2022, after Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena raised a complaint. The probing agency stated that irregularities were committed in forming and implementing the policy.

The policy was designed in favour of select private liquor entities by reducing license fees and fixing profit margins, which led to kickbacks and financial losses to the Delhi government, the CBI alleged. It also claimed that loopholes were intentionally created after the tender process to give undue advantage to specific license holders.

The CBI alleged a criminal conspiracy during the formulation of the policy, claiming a “south lobby” paid Rs 100 crore to influence the policy. As many as 23 people, including Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, were charge-sheeted in the case.

Also Read: Delhi Excise Case Twist: Court Recommends Action Against CBI Officer