Delhi liquor policy case: All accused, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia discharged as court rejects CBI chargesheet

New Delhi: In a big relief to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia, a Delhi Court on Friday (February 27) discharged all the accused in the liquor policy scam case.

Special (CBI) Judge Jitendra Singh declined to frame charges against any of the accused, finding no prima facie material for criminal conspiracy or criminal intent in the policy, giving a major blow to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). 

The court also rebuked the CBI for proceeding in an ever-expanding sweep in its investigation, seemingly driven by the question of who all can be brought within its fold and finally straying into the constitutionally demarcated domain of election expenditure.

Kejriwal and Sisodia were arrested during the investigation in the matter. Kejriwal had refused to resign as then Delhi Chief Minister during his custody. Both were finally granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The court held the CBI has failed to place any material which, even prima facie, suggested that the Delhi Excise policy 2021-22 was manipulated, altered, or engineered to confer any undue or unlawful benefit upon any private individual or the so called “South Group”.  

"On the contrary, the contemporaneous record clearly establishes that the policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after engagement with relevant stakeholders and in adherence to the procedure prescribed under law,'' the court said in its 598-page order.

It pointed out, though there was no statutory or constitutional requirement mandating the obtaining of suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings unmistakably reflected that such suggestions were nevertheless sought, examined, and incorporated. 

"The procedural integrity of the policy-making process thus stands affirmed from the documentary record itself,'' the judge said.

After examining the charge sheets, and related materials, the court said the very foundation on which the prosecution seeks to construct the narrative of conspiracy, centred around alleged payment of “upfront money” and its purported recoupment, stands fundamentally eroded.

"Private persons who sought to derive commercial advantage from a policy validly framed and lawfully implemented, without any established violation of policy conditions or statutory prohibitions, cannot be compelled to face the rigours of criminal prosecution. This court finds no apparent breach of restrictions relating to “related entities” or any other policy condition which could, by itself, attract criminal liability,'' the court said.  

The court held that to compel the accused to face the rigours of a full-fledged criminal trial in the stark absence of any legally admissible material connecting them to the alleged offences would not serve the ends of justice; it would instead constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the criminal process, offending the most basic tenets of fairness and the rule of law.  

The judge also took exception to the CBI's move to rope in Kejriwal as accused on the basis of a statement of a witness by seeking to project him as the central figure who allegedly manipulated the policy for the benefit of the so-called “South Group” and for the purpose of recouping alleged upfront money.

It found no contemporaneous document, file noting, electronic communication, financial transaction or digital evidence has been produced to directly or indirectly connect Kejriwal with any alleged policy manipulation or illegal gratification. 

"There is no material to show his presence at any conspiratorial meeting or to indicate his knowledge of any unlawful arrangement. The attempt to implicate him rests on inference drawn from uncorroborated accomplice-like statement,'' the court said.

The court pointed out the consequences of such actions are even more serious where the person concerned holds a constitutional office. 

"Arrest and prosecution in such circumstances have implications beyond the individual. Public confidence in institutions is inevitably affected," it said.

The judge similarly found no prima facie material against Sisodia. "There is no evidence placing him in any clandestine meeting or conspiratorial assembly. No witness has stated to his participation in any secret deliberation for unlawful gain. No admissible material demonstrates his involvement in any alleged cash transaction. The prosecution has not produced a single recovery, document or financial trail linking him with the alleged transfer of funds. The allegation of monetary exchange remains unsubstantiated so far as he is concerned,'' he said.  

The court held the policy choices, even if debatable or subsequently reconsidered, cannot be equated with criminal conspiracy in the absence of material demonstrating quid pro quo, concealment or corrupt inducement.  

It also rejected the CBI's allegations of manipulation of public views, received through emails in respect of the liquor policy and destruction of mobile phones to conceal the evidence.

''To attribute criminal design to an entire policy framework on the basis of six emails out of more than fourteen thousand emails is akin to attempting to pierce an elephant with a needle, the scale of the allegation is wholly disproportionate to the magnitude of the inference sought to be drawn,'' the court said.

It said, a simpliciter change of a mobile handset, followed by disposal or destruction of the earlier device, is not per se unlawful. The prosecution sought the court to presume the existence of incriminating material solely on the basis of the alleged destruction of the mobile phone device. Such an approach is legally impermissible, it held.