CBI Challenges Trial Court’s Sweeping Discharge: Excise Policy Case Reaches Delhi High Court
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi,27, February,2026- In a decisive legal escalation, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the trial court’s order discharging Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and other accused in the high-profile Delhi Excise Policy case, thereby reopening judicial scrutiny into one of the most politically and legally sensitive corruption investigations in recent times.
CBI’s legal challenge
In its petition, the CBI has assailed the discharge order as legally unsustainable, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles governing framing of charges, contending that the trial court failed to appreciate the depth, scope, and materiality of evidence collected during the investigation.
The agency has urged the High Court to exercise its revisional and supervisory jurisdiction, arguing that the impugned order has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and has prematurely terminated prosecution at a stage where only a prima facie case, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to proceed to trial.
The excise policy case
The case arises out of the alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy, under which, according to the prosecution, the policy framework was manipulated to confer undue pecuniary advantages upon select private entities, causing wrongful loss to the public exchequer and corresponding illegal gains to private parties.
The CBI investigation, running parallel to financial probes under anti-money laundering laws, had alleged a criminal conspiracy involving public servants, political executives, and private stakeholders, with accusations ranging from abuse of official position and corruption to procedural manipulation and policy distortion.
Grounds of challenge
According to sources familiar with the pleadings, the CBI has argued before the High Court that:
- The discharge order misapplied the legal threshold applicable at the stage of charge framing.
- The trial court undertook a mini-trial, weighing evidence and assessing credibility, which is impermissible at the pre-trial stage.
- Documentary records, digital evidence, statements of witnesses, and financial trails collectively disclose a prima facie case of conspiracy and abuse of office.
- The order undermines the statutory mandate of criminal procedure by short-circuiting adjudication without a full-fledged trial.
Judicial implications
The High Court’s consideration of the CBI’s plea is expected to determine whether the discharge order will stand judicial scrutiny or whether the accused will be required to face a full criminal trial. The matter raises significant questions on:
- The standard of judicial scrutiny at the stage of discharge,
- The limits of trial court discretion in corruption and economic offence cases, and
- The balance between protection against frivolous prosecution and the public interest in prosecuting complex policy-linked corruption cases.
Broader significance
The excise policy litigation has evolved into a multi-agency, multi-forum judicial contest, symbolising the intersection of criminal law, administrative governance, and constitutional accountability.
With the CBI now invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court, the case has entered a new judicial phase, shifting from investigative action to appellate and constitutional adjudication.
The Delhi High Court is expected to examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of the discharge order, after which it may either affirm the discharge or revive the prosecution, thereby restoring the case to the trial court for framing of charges and recording of evidence.
The outcome of this challenge is likely to have far-reaching consequences, not only for the accused individuals but also for the jurisprudence on corruption prosecutions, the scope of judicial interference at preliminary stages, and the future trajectory of the Delhi Excise Policy case itself.
