Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Feb 27: Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have been discharged in the Delhi excise policy case, with a city court ruling that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to substantiate the charges against them.
While discharging Kejriwal, the court flagged a lack of material evidence to support the serious allegations levelled by the prosecution. It observed that attributing a central conspiratorial role to a public functionary cannot be sustained in the absence of concrete evidence. The court further noted that public confidence in high office is undermined if prosecutorial claims are found to be unsupported by material on record.
In Sisodia’s case, the court said the prosecution’s arguments did not withstand judicial scrutiny and found no material to suggest any criminal intent on his part. It remarked that when the documents were read in conjunction with the statements recorded, they reflected administrative deliberations rather than any wrongdoing.
The court held that the process leading to the formulation of the excise policy involved consultations at multiple levels, with official records indicating institutional deliberation. “The prosecution’s theory of an overarching conspiracy failed to find force, and the narrative suffered from internal contradictions,” the court observed.
Raising serious questions over the manner of investigation, the court made strong remarks against the CBI, particularly in Sisodia’s case. It questioned why certain statements and opinions were not included in the investigation records, pointing to possible gaps in the probe.
The court also sought clarity on how the agency concluded that the opinions of three legal experts supported its case, signalling doubts over the interpretation of the material relied upon by investigators.
Additionally, the court objected to the use of the term “South Group” by the prosecution, observing that the expression lacked clarity and a proper evidentiary basis in the case record.
The ruling is seen as a significant development in the high-profile case, which had political ramifications in the national capital.