The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed the adverse observations made by a trial court against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and its investigating officer in the Delhi excise policy case, while hearing a revision petition filed by the agency challenging the discharge of all accused in the matter.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also directed the trial court to postpone proceedings in the money-laundering case linked to the alleged scam until the High Court decides the CBI’s plea. The case involves senior leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party, including Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia.
Delhi High Court sought responses from Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 21 others, with Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listing the matter for further hearing on March 16.
The order comes days after a special court discharged all 23 accused in the case, delivering a scathing critique of the investigation conducted by the CBI.
High Court stays trial court’s critical observations
During Monday’s hearing, Justice Sharma said she would stay the remarks made against the investigating agency and its officer in the trial court’s order.
“I will pass an order of stay with regard to whatever remarks and statements are made against the investigating agency and officer,” the judge said.
The High Court also directed that the trial court defer hearings in the money-laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) until the High Court decides the revision petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The court has issued notices to all accused persons and asked them to file replies to the CBI’s plea.
The CBI has challenged the February 27 verdict of Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court, which discharged all the accused in the case.
In its revision petition, the agency argued that the trial court’s order was patently illegal and perverse and based on a selective reading of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the agency was not currently seeking a stay on the discharge itself. Instead, the immediate request was to ensure that the trial court’s findings do not impact the separate money-laundering investigation being conducted by the ED.
According to Mehta, the discharge order risked affecting the foundation of the PMLA proceedings, since the ED’s case is based on the predicate offence registered by the CBI.
CBI calls alleged scam one of the biggest
Arguing before the court, Mehta described the alleged excise policy scam as one of the biggest scams in the history of the capital.
He told the court that the investigation had gathered extensive evidence establishing a conspiracy behind the formulation and implementation of the 2021-22 excise policy.
The Solicitor General said there were statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code from several witnesses describing how the conspiracy was allegedly executed and how kickbacks were paid in exchange for policy favours.
According to the prosecution’s claims, bribes amounting to nearly Rs 100 crore were paid, with a portion allegedly routed through hawala channels. Investigators have claimed that some of the funds were diverted to support election activities in Goa.
The controversy stems from the February 27 order in which the special court discharged all accused, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish a case that could proceed to trial.
The judge held that the investigation relied heavily on statements of approvers and that the prosecution had attempted to build a conspiracy narrative based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence.
The court also criticised the practice of granting pardon to accused persons and using their testimony to implicate others in order to fill gaps in the investigation.
“If such conduct is allowed, it would be a grave violation of constitutional principles,” the court had observed.
In addition, the judge directed that departmental action be considered against the investigating officer, a direction the CBI has described as shocking.
Key legal issue: scope of scrutiny at discharge stage
A central legal question in the High Court proceedings is the extent to which a trial court can analyse evidence while deciding whether charges should be framed.
Mehta argued that the trial court had effectively conducted a mini-trial by scrutinising evidence in detail, something he said is impermissible at the stage of discharge.
“This is an order of acquittal without trial,” the Solicitor General submitted, contending that approver statements need not be corroborated at the pre-trial stage and that their reliability can only be tested through cross-examination during trial.
