CBI Challenges Delhi Court's Discharge of Kejriwal in Excise Policy Case
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has launched a scathing attack on a special CBI court's order that discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 other accused in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case. In a strongly worded appeal filed in the Delhi High Court, the agency has labeled the verdict as "patently illegal" and argued that it was based on a "selective reading of the prosecution case" while disregarding crucial evidence pointing to the accused's culpability.
974-Page Appeal Details Allegations of Judicial Overreach
The CBI's appeal, which runs into a substantial 974 pages and is expected to be taken up by the High Court next week, contends that the special judge conducted what it describes as a "mini-trial" at the charge stage, which is not permitted under law. According to the agency, the judge spent four months reading only the case file, leading to a "piecemeal appreciation of evidence" that failed to consider the prosecution's case as a coherent whole.
The plea emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges, the law does not envisage such a detailed examination of evidence. "Singular facts or facts limited in their scope cannot be assessed at this stage," the CBI argues, stressing that the judge's approach shows a "lack of basic understanding" of both the prosecution case and the applicable legal principles.
CBI Alleges Conspiracy from Policy Formulation to Kickbacks
Central to the CBI's argument is the claim that the case reveals a single, continuing criminal conspiracy that began with the formulation of the excise policy and culminated in the generation and utilization of kickbacks for the Goa elections. The agency alleges that the trial court erred by dealing with separate aspects of this conspiracy in isolation, rather than assessing the accused's actions cumulatively.
"The case, read as a whole, discloses a conspiracy... culminating in the generation and utilisation of the kickbacks for Goa elections, as well as the conduct of the accused post the registration of the case," the CBI states. It further contends that the judge "completely ignored the basis of the conspiracy" and instead focused on minor contradictions, effectively formulating an alternative understanding of the accused's roles.
Agency Criticizes 'Perverse' Order and Harsh Remarks
The CBI has also taken issue with what it calls the "perverse" nature of the discharge order, arguing that it not only fails to appreciate the facts correctly but also includes "unwarranted and incomprehensible" adverse remarks against the agency and its investigating officer. According to the appeal, many of the court's observations are "unduly harsh" and based on an incorrect understanding of both law and facts.
Moreover, the agency questions the "self-contradictory" aspects of the order, noting that while the court highlights the limited scope of reviewing policy matters, it simultaneously engages in a detailed evaluation of the material leading to the policy's formulation—including a critical analysis of an expert committee report that the CBI identifies as the genesis of the conspiracy.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
The CBI alleges that the special court "erred gravely" by evaluating evidence in such detail without it being tested on the witness stand, resulting in a "partial and incorrect" assessment. At the charge stage, the court is supposed to take evidence at face value, the agency reminds, arguing that the judge's approach has led to incorrect conclusions that impute aspersions on the investigating agency.
In essence, the CBI claims that a case of rampant corruption emanating from the highest levels of executive authority has resulted in a discharge due to flawed judicial reasoning. The agency maintains that the record of the case, which should be treated as uncontroverted at this stage, clearly indicates otherwise. This appeal sets the stage for a significant legal battle in the Delhi High Court, with potential implications for political accountability and anti-corruption efforts in the capital.
