In a significant legal development that has sent ripples through the national capital’s political and investigative landscape, a Special CBI Court on Friday acquitted former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, and 21 others in the high-profile Delhi Liquor Policy case. While the acquittals themselves mark a major turning point, the court’s scathing observations regarding the conduct of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) have drawn even more attention.
The court did not merely stop at clearing the accused; it took the rare step of ordering departmental action against the CBI’s Investigating Officer (IO). In a strongly worded judgment, the court observed that the officer displayed a “complete disregard” for facts and relied on questionable tactics to sustain a case that ultimately lacked substantive material evidence.
A “Disturbing” Approach to Prosecution
The Special CBI Court expressed deep concern over how the investigation was handled, particularly regarding the treatment of public servants. The judge noted that government officials, who were simply discharging their routine administrative duties in the implementation of a public policy, were subjected to rigorous criminal prosecution.
The court found it “particularly disturbing” that these individuals were targeted based almost entirely on inadmissible hearsay. Much of the prosecution’s narrative was reportedly built upon statements attributed to an “approver”—a witness who was themselves involved but granted leniency in exchange for testimony. However, the court highlighted that the investigation failed to yield any independent material evidence to corroborate these claims or prove criminal intent.
Also Read: The Missing Money Trail: Why Lack of Material Evidence Led to Manish Sisodia’s Discharge
Fluid Allegations and Calculated Strategy
One of the most damning aspects of the judgment was the court’s analysis of the Investigating Officer’s methodology. The court observed that the officer appeared to have adopted a “conscious and calculated stratagem” by keeping the allegations against the accused deliberately “fluid.”
This approach, according to the court, allowed the prosecution to maintain a dual position. On one hand, the IO relied on certain individuals’ statements to support the case against the primary accused. On the other hand, the officer allegedly preserved the option to turn around and implicate those very individuals as accused if the initial prosecution failed to hold up under judicial scrutiny.
The court remarked that such a “dual positioning” revealed the officer was well aware of the “inherent fragility” of the allegations. It suggested that the investigation was built on an apprehension that the version presented to the court might not survive a close judicial examination, leading to the use of these tactical maneuvers to keep the case alive.
Fixing Accountability and Institutional Credibility
The court emphasized that its role extends beyond merely discounting “tainted investigative material.” To ensure that such lapses do not recur and to preserve the “institutional credibility of the investigative machinery,” the judge recommended the initiation of appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring officer.
The judgment specifically pointed to the framing of Kuldeep Singh (referred to as A-1) as an accused despite an absence of material evidence against him. By ordering action, the court aimed to fix accountability for what it perceived as a failure of professional standards within the premier investigative agency.
Conclusion of a High-Stakes Legal Battle
The Delhi Liquor Policy case, which had dominated headlines for years and led to the incarceration of several top political leaders, concluded on Friday with the court ruling that the prosecution’s claims were simply not supported by the facts on the ground.
By dismissing the case and calling for a probe into the investigator’s conduct, the Special CBI Court has underscored the necessity for investigative agencies to adhere to strict evidentiary standards, particularly when the reputations and liberties of public servants and elected officials are at stake. This ruling serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be rooted in verifiable facts rather than fluid allegations and hearsay.
Also Read: A Tearful Vindication: Delhi Court Clears Kejriwal and Sisodia of All Charges