Delhi High Court Questions Special Court's Observations in Liquor Policy Case
The Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling on Monday, stating that observations made by a special court against witnesses and approvers in the high-profile liquor policy case appear "prima facie erroneous." This development came as the court admitted a revision plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 other accused individuals.
Court Admits CBI's Revision Plea and Seeks Responses
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, formally admitted the CBI's revision petition and directed that responses be sought from all 23 individuals who were discharged by the special court. The High Court has also issued a stay on the special court judge's sharp criticism of the CBI's lead investigating officer in this matter. Justice Sharma emphasized that certain factual discrepancies highlighted in the impugned order, along with observations regarding witness and approver statements, require careful consideration in light of established legal principles concerning charges and conspiracy.
The court explicitly noted that such observations might not be appropriate at the initial charge stage itself. To facilitate a thorough review, the High Court has summoned the complete trial-court records of the case. Additionally, proceedings in the Enforcement Directorate's money-laundering case, which is connected to the liquor policy investigation, have been postponed until a decision is reached on the CBI's revision plea.
Criticism of Special Court's Remarks on Investigation
Justice Sharma pointed out that despite receiving advance notice, none of the 23 discharged individuals or their legal representatives appeared before the High Court. The court scheduled the next hearing for the CBI's plea on March 16. In a critical assessment, the High Court observed that the special judge's remarks against the CBI's lead investigator, including conclusions that the officer abused his official position to conduct an unfair investigation, are "prima facie foundationally misconceived," especially when made at the charge stage.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the CBI, argued vigorously that since all accused persons were discharged and observations were also made concerning the Enforcement Directorate's case, the High Court must ensure that the case filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, remains unaffected by the special court's order.
Background of the Case and CBI's Allegations
In a detailed five-page order, Justice Sharma documented the CBI's position that the trial court ignored crucial and admissible evidence at the charge stage. The agency contended that the court was required only to take a prima facie view of the evidence collected but instead conducted what resembled a full-fledged trial. On February 27, the special court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia, Telangana Jagruthi president K. Kavitha, and 20 others, strongly criticizing the CBI by stating that its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood entirely discredited.
The CBI has been investigating allegations of corruption in the formulation and execution of the erstwhile Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government's now-scrapped excise policy. This policy, which aimed to reform liquor sales in Delhi, has been at the center of a prolonged legal and political controversy, with multiple agencies probing potential irregularities and financial misconduct.
The High Court's intervention marks a pivotal moment in this complex legal battle, potentially reopening aspects of the case that were previously dismissed. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could have far-reaching implications for how evidence is evaluated in preliminary stages of high-stakes corruption investigations.
