Introduction
In a significant legal development, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have approached the Delhi High Court to dismiss the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal against their exoneration in the Excise Policy case. Their applications, which challenge the CBI’s revision petition, are rooted in procedural objections and allegations of undue haste.
Legal Grounds and Arguments
The applications by Kejriwal and Sisodia, submitted in response to the CBI’s revision plea, aim to contest the maintainability of the CBI’s challenge. The CBI had swiftly filed its plea within a mere four hours following the trial court’s judgment dated February 27, 2026. The appellants argue that this expedited filing reflects an ‘unprecedented haste’ and a lack of seriousness.
The defense contends that the CBI’s revision petition lacks specificity, failing to identify any particular legal errors or discrepancies within the trial court’s judgment. Sisodia, in his application, emphasized that the CBI’s comprehensive petition does not delineate how each accused’s discharge was unsupported by evidence or indicate the arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. Furthermore, the defense criticizes the CBI for not providing any substantial evidence or documentation to substantiate their claims of the trial court’s order being perverse.
Impact on Respondents
The applications highlight that such a broad and non-specific petition is causing prejudice to the respondents, as it leaves them unable to ascertain the precise nature of the allegations they need to counter. This lack of clarity complicates their ability to mount an effective defense.
Hearing and Judicial Proceedings
The applications are slated for a hearing before Justice Manoj Jain on August 18. Previously, the trial court had discharged Kejriwal and 22 other accused on February 27. The CBI’s challenge to this discharge initially appeared before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who on March 9 issued a notice and stayed the trial court’s directive for departmental proceedings against the CBI officer involved in the investigation. Justice Sharma also provided a preliminary finding that some of the trial court’s observations were incorrect and directed the deferment of related PMLA proceedings.
More Read
Recusal and Contempt Proceedings
Kejriwal, Sisodia, and other accused, including Pathak, Vijay Nair, Arun Pillai, and Chanpreet Singh Rayat, sought Justice Sharma’s recusal, alleging a conflict of interest due to her children’s roles on a government lawyers’ panel and her perceived ideological bias. Despite Justice Sharma’s initial refusal to recuse herself, citing these allegations as unfounded, the accused chose to boycott the proceedings.
Subsequently, Justice Sharma initiated contempt of court proceedings against Kejriwal and others for their accusations. In light of these developments, she opted not to continue hearing the Excise Policy case.
