Justice Manoj Jain is scheduled to consider the CBI’s revision petition as well as separate applications filed by Kejriwal and Sisodia seeking its dismissal on the ground that it is not maintainable. The proceedings are also listed for Tuesday, indicating that the court has set aside substantial time for arguments.
Kejriwal and Sisodia have challenged the manner in which the CBI approached the High Court after the trial court’s February 27 discharge order. Their applications contend that the agency moved with exceptional speed without adequately examining the detailed judgment. They have argued that the revision petition was filed within hours of the trial court decision and suffers from legal and procedural defects.
The trial court had discharged all 23 accused in the CBI case, including Kejriwal, Sisodia, former Delhi minister Durgesh Pathak and BRS leader K Kavitha. It found insufficient material to establish a prima facie case warranting a trial and raised questions about parts of the investigation and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The CBI has strongly disputed those findings. Its revision petition argues that the discharge order involved an erroneous assessment of evidence at a stage when the court was only required to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to frame charges. The agency has maintained that material collected during its investigation was either disregarded or evaluated in a manner more appropriate to a full trial.
The dispute now places the scope of a trial court’s scrutiny during the framing-of-charge stage at the centre of the proceedings. The High Court will have to consider whether the lower court went beyond the permissible threshold by making detailed assessments of evidence, or whether its examination was justified because the prosecution had failed to establish the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.
The case arose from the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22, which altered the capital’s liquor retail system and expanded the role of private operators. The policy was later withdrawn after allegations that its formulation and implementation favoured certain licence holders.
The CBI registered its case in August 2022, initially naming Sisodia and several officials and private individuals. Investigators alleged that changes to the policy were made to benefit a group of liquor businesses in return for improper payments. AAP leaders have consistently denied wrongdoing and described the investigation as politically motivated.
Kejriwal was arrested in connection with the excise policy cases in 2024 and later released on bail. Sisodia, who had held the excise portfolio when the policy was formulated, spent more than a year in custody before obtaining bail from the Supreme Court. Both leaders continued to contest the prosecution’s allegations.
The February discharge order represented a significant setback for the CBI. The agency moved the High Court almost immediately, describing the ruling as legally unsustainable and maintaining that significant elements of the investigation had not been properly considered.
At an earlier High Court hearing, Justice Jain granted Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak a final opportunity to file their responses to the CBI petition. Kejriwal and Sisodia subsequently sought outright dismissal of the revision plea rather than limiting their submissions to the merits of the discharge order.
Their challenge raises a preliminary question that could determine how the case proceeds. If the High Court accepts their objection to maintainability, the CBI petition could be rejected without a complete examination of the agency’s arguments against the discharge. If the objection fails, the court would proceed to evaluate whether the trial court committed legal errors significant enough to warrant interference.
The proceedings remain distinct from litigation arising from the Enforcement Directorate’s money-laundering investigation linked to the same excise policy. The two agencies pursued separate cases under different statutes, although both investigations stemmed from allegations surrounding the formulation and implementation of the policy.
(IPA Service)
