Excise Policy Case: Delhi High Court Orders Fresh Notice To Kejriwal, Sisodia & Pathak
The Delhi High Court took up the CBI’s challenge to the discharge order in the liquor policy case while directing fresh notice due to non-appearance of several respondents
Delhi High Court adjourned the CBI’s challenge against the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the liquor policy case to July 16
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday took up the CBI’s plea challenging the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and other accused in the alleged liquor policy scam case, with Justice Manoj Jain presiding over the matter after its reassignment from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
The case was transferred following the initiation of contempt proceedings by Justice Sharma against certain parties in the same matter.
Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that all respondents had been duly served and that the matter had already seen appearances and arguments at earlier stages. He maintained that the discharge order “cannot stand scrutiny of law” and urged for expedited hearing, terming the case one involving serious allegations and a “scam in the capital of this nation.”
Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.
The Court noted that there was no representation for Respondents 8, 18 and 19 despite repeated listings. Mehta also highlighted that multiple opportunities had already been granted for filing replies but compliance remained incomplete.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Vijay Nair, argued that pending maintainability applications should be heard first and separately. He also contended that the revision petitioners were private counsel rather than public prosecutors, and therefore sought independent consideration of his applications.
Responding to this, the Solicitor General argued that all connected matters should be heard together for consistency, adding that earlier orders were passed after consent and continue to remain in force.
The Court observed that replies were yet to be filed by several respondents and clarified that, without prejudice to maintainability issues, all parties must file responses. It further noted that respondents 8, 18 and 19 had remained absent on previous dates as well.
Taking note of the repeated non-appearance, the Court directed issuance of fresh notice to ensure participation of all parties. It observed that the matter had been widely reported and, in the interest of fairness, all respondents must be given an opportunity to appear and present their stand.
“The ideal scenario is where all parties are present and everyone is heard,” the Court observed.
Mehta, meanwhile, urged the Court to ensure timely compliance, stating that “no party should be allowed to take court proceedings for a joy ride.”
The Court directed the Solicitor General to ensure that Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak are properly informed about the transfer of the case and given an opportunity to appear. It also ordered continuation of interim arrangements and permitted replies to be filed before the next date.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on May 25 at 2:30 PM.
Earlier, Justice Sharma had rejected recusal pleas filed by Kejriwal and others, who had expressed apprehension of bias. She later decided to continue hearing the matter, prompting the accused to indicate that they would boycott proceedings before her.
The CBI’s revision petition challenges the trial court’s order dated February 27, which discharged all 23 accused in the case, including senior political leaders. The trial court had also made strong observations questioning aspects of the CBI’s investigation. In a detailed order, the court criticised the investigation conducted by the CBI, observing that the agency had implicated the accused without sufficient material.
The judge had noted that the voluminous chargesheet contained several lacunae and was not supported by witness statements or substantive evidence. The High Court had earlier observed that certain findings of the trial court appeared prima facie erroneous, leading to the CBI’s challenge in revision.
What has happened so far in the Delhi Excise policy case:
It is to be noted that Senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia had written to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, stating that he will not participate in further hearings in the matter, citing concerns over the “appearance of impartial justice” and invoking principles of conscience and Satyagraha. Sisodia’s letter follows a similar communication by Arvind Kejriwal a day earlier. Referring to it, Sisodia stated, “I have carefully considered the substance of that letter… I find myself in respectful agreement with the stand taken by him, which is based on Mahatma Gandhi's teachings on Satyagraha.”
Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.
Bench: Justice Manoj Jain
Hearing Date: May 19, 2026