Delhi Court Ends Excise Policy Saga, all 23 Accused Cleared
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi,27, February,2026-In a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves through the corridors of power, a Delhi Court today delivered a sweeping exoneration in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case.
Special Judge (PC Act) Jitender Singh ordered the discharge of all 23 accused persons, effectively dismantling the investigative narrative laboriously constructed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over the past several years.
The Judicial Hammer: “Conjecture Does Not Equal Conspiracy”
The court’s verdict was not merely an acquittal it was a scathing critique of the investigative process.
In a detailed order, Judge Jitender Singh observed that the prosecution’s entire case failed to meet the threshold of “judicial scrutiny.”
The Bench noted that the CBI had attempted to construct an “overarching conspiracy” and a “criminal intent” regarding the formulation of the Delhi excise policy based on mere conjecture and suspicion rather than substantive evidence.
The court underscored that in a criminal trial, particularly one of this magnitude, the burden of proof cannot be sustained by the mere framing of a narrative.
Consequently, the court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against any of the 23 accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and BRS leader K. Kavitha.
Rebuking the “Approver-Driven” Probe
One of the most significant aspects of today’s judgment was the court’s sharp rebuke of the CBI’s investigative methodology.
The Bench specifically pulled up the agency for relying heavily on “approver statements”—testimony from individuals who, in exchange for immunity, often tailor their accounts to suit the prosecution’s theory.
The court’s remarks suggested that such reliance, in the absence of independent corroborating evidence, undermined the integrity of the investigation.
The Bench hinted that the agency’s reliance on these statements appeared designed to bolster a pre-conceived narrative rather than to uncover the objective truth.
Accountability at the Doorstep of Investigators
Perhaps the most unprecedented development in today’s proceedings was the court’s decision regarding accountability.
Finding grave lapses in the investigation, the court announced that it would recommend a departmental inquiry against the CBI officials responsible for naming public servant Kuldeep Singh as “Accused Number One.”
The court expressed deep concern over the professional standards applied during the investigation, noting that naming a public servant as a primary accused without substantial evidence was a procedural overreach that necessitated disciplinary oversight.
The Road Ahead
The order of discharge marks a terminal point for the CBI’s case against these individuals.
By clearing the accused of all charges and rejecting the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy, the court has effectively halted the legal proceedings that have dominated the political and judicial landscape in the capital for years.
Senior Advoate Rebecca M John along with Advocate Vivek Jain appeared for Manidh Sisodia.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan and Advocate Mudit Jain appeared for Kejriwal.
The excise police case is as framed by the Delhi government to boost revenue and reform liquor trade in 2021, which was later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities in implementation were made and Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered probe by the CBI into the policy.
This policy which sought to completely privatise liquor trade in the national capital was used to grant undue advantage to private entities at the cost of public exchequer and smacked of corruption the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI investigation claimed.
In this case Manish Sisodia was first arrested by the CBI in a case related to the excise policy on February 26, 2023 and later by the Enforcement Directorate on March 9, 2023. In the first information report (FIR) registered by the CBI, Sisodia and others have been accused of being instrumental in recommending and taking decisions regarding the 2021-2022 excise policy without the approval of the competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tenders.
As the legal community digests the implications of this verdict, the ruling serves as a profound reminder of the judiciary’s role as the final arbiter of truth—a check against the power of state investigative agencies when they operate beyond the bounds of evidence and procedural law.
