Details of Accused and Court Observations
Besides Kejriwal and Sisodia, the discharged individuals include Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam, Sameer Mahendru, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh, K Kavitha, Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur, and Sarath Reddy.
The judge expressed surprise at the inclusion of Kuldeep Singh as the first accused despite the absence of material evidence. Regarding Sisodia, the Court highlighted that no recovery or direct involvement linked him to the policy implementation. Kejriwal, holding a constitutional office, was implicated without fundamental material, and attribution in the alleged conspiracy could not be sustained.
Jail Periods and Legal Representation
Sisodia spent approximately 530 days in judicial custody, while Kejriwal was in jail for around 156 days across two periods, having been granted bail in September 2024 by the Supreme Court. Senior Advocates Rebecca M John and N Hariharan, along with Advocates Vivek Jain and Mudit Jain, represented Sisodia and Kejriwal respectively.
Background of the Liquor Policy Case
The 2021 excise policy, aimed at privatizing Delhi’s liquor trade and boosting government revenue, faced allegations of irregularities, prompting Lieutenant-Governor Vinay Kumar Saxena to order a CBI probe. Both the Enforcement Directorate and CBI alleged the policy provided undue advantage to private licensees at the expense of public exchequer.
Sisodia was first arrested by the CBI in February 2023 and later by the ED in March 2023, while Kejriwal was formally arrested by the CBI in June 2024 while in ED custody. The agencies had alleged evasive responses and lack of cooperation from the accused during the investigation.
Implications and Court Orders
The Court also ordered a departmental inquiry against the CBI Investigating Officer for lapses in the investigation. Legal experts note that the verdict reaffirms the principle that allegations must be supported by substantial evidence, especially for public representatives holding constitutional positions.
