- By Surarika Das
- Sat, 28 Feb 2026 12:52 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
The Special MP/MLA court on Friday discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his ex-deputy Manish Sisodi and 21 others in the Delhi liquor policy case, citing lack of evidence and refusing to take cognisance of the CBI chargesheet against them. Special Judge Jitendra Singh rapped the CBI for lapses in the investigation, saying that there was no cogent evidence against Kejriwal and there was no prima facie case against Sisodia and the other accused.
The court's ruling serves as a significant critique of how probe agencies approach cases involving political funding and electoral expenditures.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal's Resurgence: Why Congress Has Every Reason To Worry? Explained
Delhi Liquor Policy Case: How The Case Unfolded?
The case originated from allegations by the CBI and ED that the Delhi liquor policy was deliberately twisted to benefit a "South Group" of businessmen. It was alleged that in exchange for these favours, a Rs 100-crore bribe was paid, which was subsequently used to fund the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) election campaign in Goa.
However, the special court found that the CBI failed to meet the "minimum threshold" of evidence required for a trial, clarifying that the agency could not establish even a prima facie case of corruption apart from mere allegations of election spending.
What The Court's Order State?
Special Judge Jitendra Singh cautioned that investigative agencies must not be used as instruments to shape political outcomes or erode the "level playing field" crucial for free and fair elections. The court further noted that accusations regarding election-funding irregularities and excess expenditure fall under the exclusive prerogative of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The judge also ruled that significant laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act and PMLA cannot be used as a "device to convert political accusations into prosecutable offences" without clear, concise evidence of a crime.
The court warned that if investigative agencies enter the electoral arena exclusively based on "cash spending" allegations, the inevitable result would be the "criminalisation of electoral competition," arming the executive with coercive tools against opponents.
It also pointed out that for the CBI to independently probe election expenditure would mean the executive is "rewarding itself a supervisory role over elections," a power the Constitution denies.
Allegations of hawala or cash transactions cannot sustain a criminal prosecution unless supported by legally admissible evidence highlighting an illegal source and a nexus with a defined scheduled offence, the court said.
Special court noted that allowing agencies to act without an ECI referral or a cognisable offence would "invert the constitutional hierarchy", reducing the Election Commission to a "mere observer" in its own central domain.