The discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and other accused in the excise policy case marks a major turning point in one of the most politically charged corruption probes of recent years. Yet, legally speaking, the case is unlikely to end here.
“Serious allegations must be supported by material evidence. The attribution of a central conspiratorial role cannot be sustained on the record,” the court said.
“Public confidence in high office is affected if prosecution allegations are found to be unsupported by material,” it added.
The court further said that there was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent behind the liquor policy.
The judge warned against investigative practices that rely on turning an accused into an approver to widen the net of culpability. The court observed that permitting such conduct would amount to a grave violation of constitutional principles.
"If such conduct is allowed, it would be a grave violation of the Constitutional principles. The conduct where an accused is granted pardon and then made an approver, his statements used to fill the gaps in the investigation/narrative and make additional people accused is wrong,” reads the order.
In its order, the court also directed a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s investigating officer, citing serious lapses in the investigation.
Sisodia had spent about 530 days in custody in connection with the case, while Kejriwal was jailed for 156 days across two spells before securing bail.
Immediate legal next steps: CBI’s appeal route
The most predictable next move is by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Investigating agencies almost invariably challenge discharge orders in high-profile corruption cases, especially when the trial court has made strong remarks on the quality of the investigation.
The CBI’s primary remedy is to approach the Delhi High Court by filing a criminal revision petition or appeal challenging the discharge order. The agency will argue that the trial court overstepped at the charge stage by weighing evidence too strictly, statements of approvers and witnesses deserved fuller appreciation at trial and documentary material and circumstantial links created sufficient grave suspicion.
The High Court will not re-conduct the investigation but will examine whether the trial court correctly applied the legal threshold for framing charges. If it finds that the trial court prematurely assessed evidence or ignored material, it may revive charges and order the trial to proceed.
If the High Court upholds the discharge, the CBI could still have the option of approaching the Supreme Court of India.
Parallel proceedings still relevant
Importantly, the excise policy controversy involved investigations by both the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Even though the CBI case has collapsed at the charge stage, proceedings linked to money-laundering allegations under the ED framework could continue depending on their evidentiary footing.
Courts have repeatedly held that a money-laundering prosecution can survive independently if the proceeds of crime are demonstrable. However, if the predicate offence itself appears weak or legally untenable, the ED’s case often becomes vulnerable as well. Therefore, this discharge order may indirectly weaken other proceedings tied to the same policy decisions.
Political impact
The political consequences may prove even more significant than the legal ones. For the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the order will boost their campaign in the upcoming Punjab elections. The court’s language, particularly its remarks on lack of evidence, reliance on approvers, and investigative lapses, allows the party to frame the case as political targeting rather than prosecutable corruption.
For the BJP, however, the political battle is unlikely to be conceded. The party may argue that discharge does not equal acquittal.
In practical terms, the next six to twelve months will determine the fate of the case. The High Court’s response to a likely CBI appeal will decide whether the matter proceeds to trial, returns for reconsideration, or effectively ends.
Until then, the excise policy case will continue to exist simultaneously in two arenas, the courtroom and the political stage. While the discharge order has reshaped the legal landscape in favour of Kejriwal and his colleagues, the final outcome will depend on appellate scrutiny and the evolving political narrative surrounding the case.