Delhi Excise Policy Verdict: Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia Acquitted in Landmark Ruling

RMN News Report Highlights

• ⚖️ Judicial Exoneration: The Rouse Avenue Court has acquitted former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, ruling that the CBI failed to substantiate a “central conspiratorial role” after years of investigation.
• 🛡️ Failure of Scrutiny: Special Judge Jitendra Singh determined the allegations failed judicial scrutiny, finding “no criminal intent” and stating the conspiracy theory could not survive against “one constitutional authority.”
• 🗣️ Explosive Reaction: A tearful Arvind Kejriwal labeled the case the “biggest political conspiracy of Independent India,” specifically accusing the central leadership of a plot to “crush AAP.”
• 🔄 Appellate Move: While all 23 accused—including the purported “South Lobby”—were cleared, the CBI maintains the evidence is sufficient and plans to challenge the acquittal in the High Court.

By Rakesh Raman
New Delhi | February 27, 2026

1. The Judicial Verdict: Deconstructing the Rouse Avenue Court Ruling

The acquittal of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia represents a watershed moment in Delhi’s legal history, effectively dismantling a multi-year narrative of corruption constructed by federal investigative agencies. For nearly four years, the excise policy case served as the centerpiece of a high-stakes standoff between the Delhi executive and the Union government. This ruling not only provides immediate legal vindication for the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) top tier but also fundamentally challenges the foundational claims of a systemic “scam,” forcing a re-evaluation of the evidence used to paralyze the capital’s political architecture.

In his 2026 pronouncement, Special Judge Jitendra Singh provided a searing critique of the prosecution’s central thesis. The court observed that the alleged “central conspiratorial role” attributed to the leaders was never substantively proven.

Crucially, the bench noted that the CBI’s conspiracy theory “cannot survive against one constitutional authority”—a clear reference to the protections and responsibilities inherent in the Office of the Chief Minister. Regarding former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, the court was explicit, finding “no criminal intent” and concluding that the allegations fundamentally collapsed under judicial scrutiny.

The procedural journey to this verdict reached its climax after the court reserved its order on February 12, 2026. This followed years of exhaustive arguments spanning a primary chargesheet and four supplementary filings. The decision to discharge the leaders, alongside 21 other accused parties, marks a definitive pause in a case that has redefined Delhi’s governance. However, the scope of this exoneration extends far beyond the political figureheads, encompassing a broad spectrum of bureaucrats and business interests.

2. Profile of the Acquitted: From Leadership to the “South Lobby”

The 2022 Delhi excise policy case was defined by its sprawling complexity, involving a tangled web of 23 accused individuals ranging from high-ranking constitutional authorities to liquor barons. The sheer volume of the chargesheet necessitated a high-stakes judicial evaluation to determine if the disparate threads of evidence actually formed a coherent criminal tapestry.

Also Read:

[ CAG Report Reveals Corruption in Delhi Liquor Scandal of Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party ]

[ ED Raids AAP Leader Saurabh Bhardwaj Amid Widespread Corruption Allegations and Bail Culture ]

[ India Corruption Research Report 2025: Systemic Corruption Embedded in Governance Structures ]

Beyond the headline names of Kejriwal and Sisodia, the court cleared BRS leader K Kavitha, whose alleged involvement was a cornerstone of the CBI’s narrative. The acquittal also extended to a wide-ranging group of 20 others, which can be categorized as follows:

• Political Operatives and Insiders: Vijay Nair and Durgesh Pathak.
• The Bureaucracy: Former excise officials Kuldeep Singh and Narender Singh.
• Liquor Industry Figures: Sameer Mahendru, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Amit Arora, and P Sarath Chandra Reddy.
• Alleged Intermediaries and Associates: Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Ramchandra Pillai, Mootha Goutam, Arjun Pandey, and Butchibabu Gornatla.

The bedrock of the CBI’s prosecution was the “South Lobby” theory—an allegation that a Rs 100 crore payoff was made to manipulate the now-defunct excise policy in favor of specific commercial interests. The agency claimed this money was a quid pro quo for favorable policy shifts. However, the trial court found that these claims lacked the evidentiary weight required to proceed to trial, leading to the collective exoneration of the entire group. This shift from specific names to the failure of the legal arguments themselves underscores the collapse of the CBI’s foundational “kickback” theory.

3. Legal Confrontation: Prosecution Claims vs. Defense Strategy

The courtroom battle was a study in tension between the CBI’s “incremental evidence” approach and the defense’s rigorous reliance on “official duty” protections. While the prosecution attempted to weave together disparate meetings and policy changes into a grand narrative of corruption, the defense characterized the investigation as a repetitive exercise in “repackaging” old, non-incriminating data.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) D.P. Singh, representing the CBI, argued forcefully that the “offence of criminal conspiracy must be viewed in its entirety.” The prosecution maintained that the sufficiency of the material should only be tested during the trial stage, not during the framing of charges, and that they possessed adequate material to proceed against all 23 individuals.

Conversely, senior advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for Kejriwal, countered that the fourth supplementary chargesheet—the only one naming the former CM—contained no new incriminating material. The defense specifically dismantled the evidentiary value of “approver” statements, such as those from Raghav Magunta, questioning the very “basis of further investigation” and the reliability of statements extracted under investigative pressure.

The defense for Arvind Kejriwal rested on two strategic pillars:

1. Constitutional Protection: He was performing “official duties” as Chief Minister, and the policy-making process followed established administrative protocols.
2. Strategic Omission: Kejriwal was conspicuously absent from the initial chargesheet and the first three supplementary filings, suggesting his late inclusion was a tactical move rather than an evidence-driven one.

These technical arguments proved decisive, leading to an emotional atmosphere as the court announced the failure of the prosecution to meet the legal threshold for trial.

4. Political and Institutional Repercussions: The Narrative of Vindication

In the volatile landscape of Indian politics, the “narrative of honesty” is a vital strategic asset. For the AAP, this verdict is not just a legal win but a pivotal tool for political survival. By clearing the party leadership, the court has allowed the AAP to pivot from a defensive stance to an offensive campaign of “political victimization,” just as the 2026 political cycle intensifies.

The response to the verdict was visceral. Arvind Kejriwal broke down emotionally in court before asserting to the public: “Narendra Modi and Amit Shah together hatched the biggest political conspiracy of Independent India to crush AAP.” He framed the acquittal as a testament to his personal honesty. The party’s communication strategy has since centered on the idea that the entire case was a manufactured crisis designed to dismantle a growing political rival.

However, this “victory for truth” is shadowed by a deepening institutional cynicism. The “Law Flaw: India Judicial Research Report 2025” paints a bleak picture of the system, asserting it has “collapsed under the weight of corruption, political interference, and administrative apathy.”

The report’s finding that “justice today depends more on power and money” colors the public perception of the acquittal; where the AAP sees vindication, critics and researchers see a system so decayed that even a high-profile acquittal feels like a symptom of a larger “administrative apathy.” This unresolved tension between the “triumph of law” and “systemic decay” defines the current political climate.

5. Future Outlook: Appellate Challenges and Ongoing Scrutiny

In high-stakes corruption litigation, a trial court acquittal is rarely the end of the road; it is often merely the conclusion of a highly publicized first chapter. Given the political prestige invested in the case, the legal battle is certain to migrate to the appellate stage, keeping the excise policy saga in the public consciousness for the foreseeable future.

The CBI has already confirmed its trajectory, stating its intent to file an appeal in the High Court against the acquittal. The agency remains adamant that the conspiracy must be judged in its “entirety” through a full trial. Parallel to this, the Law Flaw report’s recommendation for AI-driven auditing systems to detect “biases and punish corrupt judges” adds a new layer of scrutiny to such high-profile orders. If implemented, such systems could subject Judge Singh’s ruling to a technological post-mortem to determine if the discharge of constitutional authorities was based on pure merit or systemic influence.

Ultimately, the long-term implications for Delhi’s governance are mixed. While the authors of the 2022 policy have been cleared of criminal intent, the policy itself remains scrapped and discredited. The enduring friction between investigative agencies and the judiciary highlights a fundamental fragility in the democratic framework—where the line between a legitimate anti-corruption drive and the “biggest political conspiracy” remains a matter of fierce judicial and public debate.

By Rakesh Raman, who is a national award-winning journalist and social activist. He is the founder of a humanitarian organization RMN Foundation which is working in diverse areas to help the disadvantaged and distressed people in the society.