Excise Policy Case: Delhi HC Gives Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Final Chance To Reply In CBI's Discharge Plea Challenge

The Delhi High Court granted a last opportunity to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to respond to the CBIs plea challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case.
X

The Delhi High Court granted Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak a final opportunity to file replies in the CBI's revision petition challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case

The Delhi High Court granted Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak a last and final opportunity to file replies in the CBI's revision petition challenging the trial court's order discharging all accused in the Delhi excise policy case, while continuing the interim order

The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted a last and final opportunity to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Durgesh Pathak to file their replies in the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) revision petition challenging the trial court's order discharging all accused in the Delhi excise policy case.

Justice Manoj Jain noted that no counsel appeared on behalf of any of the respondents, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak, when the matter was taken up.

The Court was informed that while replies had been filed by the remaining respondents, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak had yet to place their responses on record despite earlier opportunities.

Taking note of the delay, the Bench granted the three respondents one last and final opportunity to file their replies, making it clear that no further delay in the proceedings would be entertained.

The matter has now been listed for hearing on August 17 and August 18.

Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Additional Solicitor General D.P. Singh, sought an earlier hearing, urging the Court to advance the matter to the last week of July in view of the significance of the case.

Justice Jain, however, observed that preponing the hearing "appears a little difficult" at present, while adding that the Court would examine the possibility depending on the availability of its board.

The High Court also directed that the interim order operating in the matter shall continue until the next date of hearing.

The revision petition has been filed by the CBI challenging the trial court's decision discharging all accused, including Kejriwal, Sisodia and Pathak, in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. The High Court will now consider the challenge after the respondents file their replies.

In May the Court had adjourned to July 16 the CBI’s challenge against the discharge of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak in the alleged liquor policy case. The matter, listed before Justice Manoj Jain, came up after being reassigned following earlier proceedings in which Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma had initiated contempt action and transferred the case.

When the matter was taken up, the Court enquired whether any representation had been received from the three respondents. Appearing for the CBI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court of the procedural status of the case. Court staff, meanwhile, informed the Bench that vakalatnamas for all three respondents had been filed only on the same day. Taking note of the lawyers’ strike and the day’s procedural developments, the Court observed that it was a “peculiar” situation and indicated that the matter could be taken up in mid-July.

What has happened so far in the Delhi Excise policy case

Notably, on May 19, the Court had issued fresh notices to the three respondents. 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.

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.”

Manish Sisodia's recusal case involves a pending criminal revision petition before the Delhi High Court, where he had sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma citing apprehensions of bias. In the same case, Arvind Kejriwal was permitted to argue the recusal plea in person and he had made detailed submissions before the Court.

The High Court, however, rejected the recusal plea, holding that the grounds raised did not justify withdrawal of the judge and cautioning against allegations that could undermine the institution’s integrity if not substantiated.

Following the hearing, videos of Kejriwal’s courtroom arguments surfaced and were widely circulated on social media, triggering a separate controversy over alleged unauthorised recording and dissemination of court proceedings. The same is under consideration before the High Court. It is in this backdrop that after Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak have written to the Court expressing their decision to abstain from further participation in the matter.

Case Title: CBI v. Kuldeep Singh & Ors.

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain

Hearing Date: July 16, 2026

Tags

Next Story