Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Challenge CBI Revision Against Excise Policy Discharge In Delhi HC

The applications raise preliminary objections to the maintainability of the CBI's revision petition, which challenges the February 27, 2026 order of the Special Judge, Rouse Avenue Court, discharging all 23 accused in the case. The objections contend that the CBI's plea was filed with “unprecedented haste” and effectively seeks appellate reconsideration of the trial court's findings.

The applications are likely to come up before Justice Manoj Jain on August 17 or 18.

Notably, on July 16, the High Court had granted a last and final opportunity to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to file their replies in the CBI's revision petition.

Kejriwal, Sisodia say CBI filed revision within four hours

A key objection raised by Kejriwal and Sisodia is that the CBI filed its revision petition within four hours of the trial court's February 27 discharge judgment.

The applicants have described the filing as being made with “unprecedented haste” and in an “unserious manner”, arguing that the CBI could not have properly examined a detailed discharge judgment within such a short period.

The discharge order ran into 549 pages and 1,135 paragraphs, while the CBI's revision petition was stated to be only 36 pages long. The applicants contend that the CBI has failed to identify specific findings in the judgment that demonstrate perversity or illegality.

'CBI Petition is appeal in Grab of Revision'

The applicants have argued that the CBI's revision petition does not satisfy the limited parameters of revisional jurisdiction and is effectively an appeal in the garb of a revision petition.

They contend that the agency has not identified, accused-wise, any specific finding showing that the discharge order was based on no evidence, that material evidence was ignored, or that judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

The application further states that the CBI has failed to produce evidence, material or documents demonstrating perversity in the discharge order.

Sisodia's application specifically argues that the omnibus petition does not explain which finding, in which paragraph and concerning which accused, allegedly reflects an arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion.

Applicants rely on limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

Kejriwal and Sisodia have relied upon Supreme Court precedents, including Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, to contend that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised like appellate jurisdiction.

The applicants argue that revisional powers are meant to correct patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, grossly erroneous findings, findings based on no evidence, failure to consider material evidence, or arbitrary or perverse exercise of judicial discretion.

They further contend that re-appreciation or re-examination of evidence is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.

'Bare-shell, Omnibus Petition' causes prejudice

The applicants have also argued that the CBI's “bare-shell, omnibus and non-specific” petition causes serious prejudice because the respondents are unable to ascertain the precise case they are required to meet.

According to the objections, the CBI has largely narrated its version of the facts and evidence without pointing out specific perversities in the trial court's findings.

The applicants have therefore urged the High Court to dismiss the CBI's revision petition as non-maintainable.

CBI has filed five chargesheets against 23 accused

The CBI's revision petition arises from the FIR registered in August 2022 concerning alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

The agency had filed five chargesheets naming 23 accused persons under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC. Following detailed arguments on charge, the Special Judge on February 27 discharged all 23 accused, including Kejriwal and Sisodia.

The CBI subsequently challenged the discharge order before the High Court.

Kejriwal and Sisodia have now separately challenged the maintainability of that revision petition and sought its dismissal. The matters are likely to be taken up by the Delhi High Court on August 17 or 18.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Hearing likely: August 17 or 18