{"id":377771,"date":"2026-03-09T15:15:13","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T09:45:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=377771"},"modified":"2026-03-12T17:50:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-12T12:20:52","slug":"del-hc-issues-notice-cbis-challenge-to-discharge-delhi-excise-policy-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/09\/del-hc-issues-notice-cbis-challenge-to-discharge-delhi-excise-policy-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Excise Policy Case | Delhi High Court issues notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others on CBI\u2019s plea challenging discharge"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a criminal revision challenging the discharge of Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others by Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi (trial court) by order dated 27 February 2026 in Delhi Excise Policy Case. A Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.<\/span>, issued notice and sought reply from the 23 respondents against CBI’s petition.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Inside Delhi Excise Policy Case Ruling: Rouse Avenue Court discharges Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others; finds no prima facie case<\/a><\/p>\n

The instant matter deals with alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 (Delhi Excise Policy) to extend undue benefit to certain private persons\/entities described as the “South Group” and allied intermediaries in consideration of illegal gratification quantified at approximately 90—100 ₹ crores. While determining whether charges should be framed against the accused or whether they were entitled to discharge under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC), the trial court discharged the accused-respondents 1 to 23 of all the offences alleged against them and held that material placed on record did not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons. The CBI sought setting aside of the discharge order.<\/p>\n

None of the respondents appeared before the High Court despite service of notice. Considering the urgency urged by the prosecution, the Court proceeded to hear the petitioner’s submissions.<\/p>\n

The Solicitor General, appearing for the CBI, argued that the trial court had erroneously discharged the accused persons by ignoring material evidence placed before it through the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets. It was contended that the trial court went beyond the limited scope of scrutiny permissible at the stage of framing of charge and effectively conducted a full-fledged evaluation of evidence, which is ordinarily the function of a trial.<\/p>\n

It was further pointed out that the impugned discharge order could also affect proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> (PMLA), since the CBI case constituted the predicate offence for the PMLA proceedings.<\/p>\n

The CBI also challenged certain observations made by the trial court against the Investigating Officer, including remarks suggesting abuse of official position and recommending departmental action. It was submitted that such severe comments were unwarranted at the preliminary stage of charge.<\/p>\n

The Court noted the “certain factual discrepancies” in the impugned order, as pointed out by petitioner, particularly in relation to the trial court’s observations about witness statements and approver statements.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that such observations at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appear erroneous and required examination in light of the well-settled legal principles governing the stage of charge and conspiracy as to whether such observations could have been made at the stage of charge itself.<\/p>\n

The Court also took note of the scathing remarks made against the investigating officer. It found that these remarks, including the conclusion that the officer had abused his official position and conducted an unfair investigation, appeared prima facie “foundationally misconceived”, especially when made at the stage of charge itself.<\/p>\n

Since these aspects required deeper consideration in the revision petition, the Court considered it appropriate to issue notice and examine the matter further after hearing the respondents and issued following directions:<\/p>\n