Delhi High Court fixed October 5 and 6 for comprehensive arguments on the CBI’s challenge to the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and others in the excise policy case

The Delhi High Court on Monday granted four weeks to the respondents to file their replies in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s challenge to the discharge of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and others in the Delhi excise policy case, while making it clear that arguments would be heard comprehensively and without further adjournments.

Justice Manoj Jain was hearing the CBI’s revision petition challenging the discharge order. Kejriwal, Sisodia and other respondents have raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition.

The Court directed that the matter would be taken up for comprehensive arguments on October 5 and 6, with the prosecution to commence arguments. The interim order already operating in the matter will continue.

At the outset, Senior Advocates Vikram Chaudhari and Shadan Farasat requested that the respondents’ applications raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition be heard before the merits.

Chaudhary submitted that the objection went to the root of the matter and argued that the Investigating Officer was not competent to institute the revision petition. He also questioned the absence of a vakalatnama in the revision petition.

“Procedure is the handmaiden of justice,” Chaudhary submitted.

Farasat supported the request, arguing that if the revision petition itself was not properly executed, that issue had to be decided before the Court proceeded further.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju opposed the objections, describing them as “frivolous” and “absolutely misconceived”.

The Court, however, clarified that the respondents would be given an opportunity to raise their objections, but would not dictate the sequence in which the Court heard them.

“You have chosen to file an application raising a preliminary objection,” the Court observed, adding that if the application was dismissed, the respondents could not then seek to argue the preliminary objection while addressing the merits.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan also raised an objection to an additional written submission of 103 pages served by the prosecution shortly before the hearing.

Hariharan submitted that the written submission contained substantial grounds which, according to him, were not part of the original revision petition. He also pointed out that two annexures had been filed which were not part of the original record.

He sought an opportunity to respond, arguing that the respondents should be given a fair chance to address the additional material.

The Court noted that an earlier order dated July 15 had granted a “last and final opportunity” to file replies.

After discussions, the Court asked Hariharan whether he was interested in filing a reply. Upon his confirmation, the Court agreed to grant time while making it clear that the prosecution would commence its arguments on the next date.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the grounds contained in the additional written submissions were not new. The Court said it would take note of the preliminary objections but did not want the proceedings to become piecemeal. “Arguments will be heard comprehensively. There will be no piecemeal hearing. Arguments will be heard in one go,” the Court said.

The Bench subsequently granted four weeks to all parties to file whatever replies were required.

The Court ordered that nothing beyond the four-week period would be granted and that the matter would thereafter be fixed for commencement of arguments from the CBI’s side.

The Court directed that the week beginning October 5 would be utilised for hearing the prosecution.

Accordingly, October 5 and 6 were fixed as the dates for commencement of arguments.

Respondents will be permitted to place their replies and preliminary objections on record before the hearing begins.

The Court also clarified that, in accordance with its earlier order, the CBI revision petition would be heard along with the connected petition.

At the request of Solicitor General Mehta, the Court recorded that there would be no further adjournments after the four-week period.

The interim order operating in the matter was directed to continue.

Background 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Hearing date: August 17, 2026

Tags: