Friday saw a Delhi courtroom make waves, letting go ex-CM Arvind Kejriwal, top AAP figure Manish Sisodia, along with two dozen others tied to the capital’s liquor policy controversy. Presided over by Special Judge Jitendra Singh at Rouse Avenue Courts, the decision landed with sharp remarks aimed squarely at the CBI’s probe. Far from convinced, the bench called out the central agency for falling short on proof, noting glaring gaps where substance should have been. What emerged was less an indictment, more a rebuke – built not on new facts, but holes in the existing file.
This situation began when Delhi rolled out an alcohol sales plan back in 2021–22, aiming to rework how liquor shops operated while bringing in more money. Instead of state-run stores handling everything, the idea leaned heavily on handing control over to private players. Not long afterward, people started pointing fingers – saying things didn’t add up. Some insisted the rules were shaped so certain companies gained unfairly, leaving less cash for government needs. Because of those concerns, top official Vinay Kumar Saxena stepped in, urging federal investigators to take a close look. What followed stemmed directly from that push.
After looking into things, the CBI submitted a massive document full of details – thousands of pages long. It wasn’t just about rules being bent; it pointed straight at how the liquor policy took shape behind closed doors. Some people got advantages they shouldn’t have, especially after bids were placed. From the start, the FIR suggested actions went ahead without proper clearances – Sisodia among those named. Decisions popped up where approvals should’ve been. Changes to guidelines didn’t happen by accident – they leaned one way on purpose. Private interests found paths opened for them when no one was watching closely enough.
Still, when reading out the discharge decision, the court pointed out that a long chargesheet does not mean strong evidence. Because witness accounts or documents never confirmed key claims, the judge questioned their validity. A number of statements, the ruling said, twisted facts, creating confusion instead of clarity. Contradictions within the report itself weakened the core idea of any joint wrongdoing. Ultimately, without enough starting points to support criminal proceedings, the case could not move forward.
When it came to Manish Sisodia, said to have shaped the controversial policy, the court saw nothing proving he took part in illegal planning. Not once did the judge spot clear proof – no money trail, no solid witness statements tying him to misconduct. Held without bail for nearly 530 days, his detention began when the CBI took him into custody on February 26, 2023; later, the Enforcement Directorate followed suit on March 9 that year over connected financial charges. While the ED claimed dirty funds moved through the liquor scheme, this verdict only clears space in the earlier CBI matter – not touching their claims yet.
Though Arv. Kejriwal faced arrest, the court found no solid proof behind his implication. Not one shred of core evidence supported the claim of conspiracy, the judge pointed out clearly. Instead of facts, assumptions shaped the basis for charging a public officeholder – something deemed unfit under legal norms. Back on June 26, 2024, the CBI took him into custody even as he remained held by the ED. Through two stretches behind bars, about 156 days passed before freedom came again. Then on September 13, 2024, release followed – a result of Supreme Court bail in the CBI probe after earlier provisional relief linked to the ED case.
What stood out was how the court didn’t just point at missing proof. Serious doubts emerged over how the investigation unfolded, so an internal review got triggered against the CBI’s lead officer. Instead of backing the naming of key suspects, the bench raised eyebrows at listing people like Kuldeep Singh without solid backing. Behind those remarks lies a deeper unease – about methods, not just outcomes. The problem isn’t only who they charged, but how they went about it.
Not one of the 23 people charged stayed under accusation. Out walked Kuldeep Singh, then Narender Singh, followed by Vijay Nair, next came Abhishek Boinpally, after him Arun Pillai slipped free, Mootha Gautam stepped clear too, along with Sameer Mahendru, Amandeep Singh Dhall moved beyond reach, Arjun Pandey left quietly, Butchibabu Gorantla exited without fanfare, Rajesh Joshi unshackled himself, Damodar Prasad Sharma walked out calm, Prince Kumar joined them, Arvind Kumar Singh faded into freedom, Chanpreet Singh disappeared from charges, K Kavitha breathed freely again, Durgesh Pathak broke loose, Amit Arora stood cleared, Vinod Chauhan walked away untouched, Ashish Chand Mathur vanished from scrutiny, Sarath Reddy strode off clean – then finally Kejriwal, lastly Sisodia, both gone just like that. So wide was the dismissal it revealed what the judges truly thought – the whole case built by prosecutors never really held firm ground.
Introduced first by Delhi’s government, the excise plan meant to lift income while cutting down on bootleg alcohol sales. Shifting how permits were handled, it pushed space open for business players to step in. Yet as noise around misconduct grew louder, officials pulled the plug. Authorities like the CBI and ED insisted the rules got twisted so certain companies could gain unfairly, draining state funds. That belief became central to the charges brought forward.
Nowhere in the arguments did the team back down, with Rebecca M. John and Vivek Jain standing for Sisodia, while N. Hariharan and Mudit Jain spoke up for Kejriwal. From start to finish, they held firm – claims against their clients smelled of politics, not proof. Their stance found footing when the court agreed: what was filed could not clear the bar needed for a trial. What came next? A ruling that tilted toward their side, not because of drama, but because law demands substance. Without it, proceedings stall. That moment arrived.
One wrong move here shifts how power plays out across party lines. That booze policy scandal? It grabbed headlines nonstop, coloring how voters saw trust and control in government, state by state, top to bottom. Cops took two big names from AAP into custody – one still running a whole state then – something never seen before on this scale. Now that the court lets them walk free, talk will shift again, even if questions about who answers for what keep buzzing behind closed doors.
Looking at it through law eyes, the ruling stands firm on needing solid proof to push forward any crime claim. Because of gaps spotted early, taking someone straight into deep court battles gets blocked under such conditions. What tipped things here was how the official charge file contradicted itself too many times. Proof just wasn’t strong enough to hold up what got alleged. That gap between claims and facts settled the matter.
Still, one must see that being cleared doesn’t automatically mean guilt is ruled out when looking at ethics or politics. Instead, it points to lacking proof needed for a criminal case to move forward. Should investigators think legal errors shaped the outcome, they can take those rulings to higher courts for review.
Now comes a break in the long stretch of legal trouble for Sisodia and Kejriwal, following months behind bars and constant political heat. On another note, the CBI might begin questioning its own methods as the court’s remarks spotlight flaws in how cases were built. With a probe now directed into procedures, someone inside the system will likely have to answer hard questions.
Even within India’s vast legal framework, this situation highlights how fighting corruption walks a tightrope with safeguarding personal freedoms. When claims arise about wrongdoing, particularly involving those in power, digging deep becomes necessary. Still, trust in courts rests just as much on proof that stands firm, not on whispers or clashes tied to party rivalries.
Right now, the Delhi court’s decision to drop charges marks a key shift in the suspected liquor policy scandal. Could see an appeal soon – or maybe this wraps up the legal process here. One thing stands out: the judges made it very clear on how proof must meet strict rules during big criminal cases.
