Liquor policy case: Kejriwal, Sisodia & Kavitha discharged

New Delhi: Dealing a big blow to the CBI, a special court here on Friday discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his then deputy Manish Sisodia and 21 other accused in the liquor policy scam case. 

The court found that the material placed on record by the probe agency did not disclose even a prima facie case, much less any grave suspicion, against any of the accused persons.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh cleared all the 23 accused in the case lodged by the CBI on August 17, 2022, after holding that the prosecution had failed to cross the minimum threshold mandated by law at the stage of framing of charges. 

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

Kejriwal, Sisodia and former BRS leader K Kavitha were arrested during the probe.

Kejriwal had refused to resign as Delhi CM during his judicial custody. Both were finally granted bail by the Supreme Court.

While ordering a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer for lapses, the court held that the CBI failed to place any material which suggested the excise policy was manipulated for the benefit of any individual or the so called "South Group".  

"On the contrary, the contemporaneous record clearly establishes 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 that though there was no statutory or constitutional requirement to obtain suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings unmistakably reflected that such suggestions were nevertheless sought, examined, and incorporated. 

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 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.

“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 an 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. 

The court also expressed its displeasure with the CBI for using the phrase “South Group” while cautioning it to exercise restraint in its choice of language.

“The court considers it necessary to place on record its concern with the repeated and deliberate use of the expression, ‘South Group’, by the investigating agency to describe a set of accused persons, ostensibly based on their regional origin or place of residence,” the judge said.

The judge similarly found no prima facie material against Sisodia. “There is no evidence placing him in any clandestine meeting or conspiratorial assembly,” 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 14,000 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.