In a significant legal development on Friday, a Delhi court discharged Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in the long-running Delhi excise policy corruption case.
The ruling also extends to Arvind Kejriwal, former Chief Minister and national convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and 21 others accused in the matter.
Court Refuses to Frame Charges
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court refused to take cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), concluding that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient material and evidence to sustain the case. The judge highlighted significant gaps and internal inconsistencies in the investigation, noting that many allegations could not be supported by concrete proof or witness testimony.
In his order, the judge emphasised that serious criminal accusations require substantiation with credible evidence, and that the so-called conspiracy alleged by the prosecution could not withstand judicial scrutiny. Observing that the chargesheet contained “misleading averments” and lacked corroborating material, the court discharged all accused, stating there was no prima facie case to proceed to trial.
The court underscored that implicating individuals without strong evidentiary backing undermines the rule of law. In Sisodia’s case, the judge noted there was no material on record to establish his involvement in any criminal offence, nor were any recoveries made from him.
Similarly, the charges against Kejriwal were rejected due to a lack of credible evidence pointing to any criminal intent or conspiracy in framing and implementing the excise policy. The decision effectively closes the CBI’s prosecution in this case.
The verdict triggered emotional responses from AAP leaders and supporters. Kejriwal, visibly moved, addressed the media and described the outcome as a triumph of truth and justice. He insisted that he and his colleagues had always maintained their innocence, and reiterated that no wrongdoing had taken place. He also criticised what he called political motives behind the investigation, though emphasising that the court’s decision reaffirmed the principles of fairness and justice in the legal system.