CBI Court Questions Selective Prosecution in Delhi Excise Policy Case
A special CBI court has made significant observations regarding the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy, effectively upholding its formulation process. The court noted that the then Lieutenant Governor was consulted and that his secretariat was actively involved in processing the policy, challenging the prosecution's conspiracy theory against former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia.
Court Highlights Institutional Participation
Special Judge Jitendra Singh rejected the prosecution's claim that Kejriwal and Sisodia had unilaterally tweaked the policy. Instead, the court pointed out that changes were attributed to the Lieutenant Governor, Anil Baijal. The judge highlighted what he termed an "internal contradiction" in the prosecution's case, stating that the documentary record establishes consultation at the highest executive level.
The court elaborated: "The file notings record discussions with Hon'ble LG, incorporation of suggestions, approval by the council of ministers, and subsequent appraisal of Hon'ble LG. The material shows institutional participation of the LG Secretariat in scrutiny and movement of the file. It further reflects that the policy was neither concealed nor processed in isolation, but travelled through recognised constitutional channels."
Documentary Evidence Undermines Conspiracy Theory
The court relied on voluminous CBI documentary evidence to conclude that the theory of conspiracy cannot selectively apply to one constitutional authority while being rendered inapplicable to another based on the same material. It examined the documentary trail, including:
- Committee reports
- Departmental notings
- GoM deliberations
- Cabinet approvals
- Communications with the LG's Secretariat
The court concluded that the charge of unilateral manipulation cannot logically and legally be sustained against the deputy chief minister alone when the documentary chain demonstrates deliberation, consultation and processing through the office of the Lieutenant Governor.
LG's Role and Testimony Scrutinized
The judge emphasized that the LG and senior officers of his secretariat were integral to the movement and scrutiny of the file. "If the prosecution case were to be taken to its logical conclusion on the premise of manipulation in policy formulation, it would inevitably extend to those very authorities who processed, examined and apprised themselves of the policy. Yet no such allegation is pressed," the court noted.
However, the court clarified that its observations do not imply that any other constitutional functionary ought to have been arraigned as an accused. "On the contrary, the contemporaneous record, when objectively examined, discloses no unilateral manipulation by deputy CM. The material reveals a process marked by consultation, communication and administrative engagement at multiple levels," the court stated.
Divergence in Testimony Noted
The then LG Anil Baijal had deposed as a witness in the case. The CBI alleged that Baijal suggested only one change in the policy, but the elected government carried out seven changes and falsely attributed all these to the LG. However, the court cited testimony of officials in the LG secretariat who handled the file and categorically denied any fabrication or misattribution.
The court flagged the divergence between Baijal's claim, as alleged by CBI, and the denial of any fabrication by his officers. It said the files showed "shared deliberation." The judge noted that if it were accepted that seven suggestions emanated from the LG and were duly incorporated into the policy after discussion, then the deliberative process would stand institutionally shared.
In such a scenario: "Any allegation that the incorporation of those suggestions formed part of a criminal design would logically extend to Anil Baijal, who was the constitutional authority and the LG at the relevant time, and to the officers of the LG secretariat who processed, recorded and communicated those inputs."
The court refrained from making any adverse observation against the office of the LG, noting that it is a constitutional one, and judicial restraint is both appropriate and necessary.
