Procedural Lapses And Evidence Gaps: Why Delhi Excise Policy Case Verdict Puts CBI Under Scrutiny
· Free Press Journal
The discharge of all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy case by a Delhi court has raised fundamental questions regarding the investigative integrity of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By dismissing the case against high-profile figures including former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, the court did more than just clear their names. It issued a scathing indictment of the agency’s methods.
As reported by Bar and Bench, Special Judge Jitendra Singh ruled that there was no "overarching conspiracy or criminal intent" in the policy, concluding that the prosecution’s narrative was built on "mere conjecture" rather than judicial fact.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
A narrative built on conjecture
The court’s findings suggest that the CBI’s primary failure lay in its attempt to force a specific narrative without supporting evidence. According to LiveLaw, Judge Singh observed that the "voluminous chargesheet," which ran into thousands of pages, was riddled with "misleading averments" and "internal contradictions" that struck at the very root of the alleged conspiracy.
The court specifically pointed out that the agency failed to produce cogent material or recovery to link Sisodia to any criminal act, despite his 530 days in incarceration. In the case of Kejriwal, the court noted he was implicated without any fundamental evidence, a move the judge described as "inconsistent with the rule of law."
Abuse of approver statements and constitutional lapses
A significant portion of the court’s criticism focussed on the CBI’s tactical reliance on turning accused individuals into witnesses to bolster weak cases. Bar and Bench reports that the judge pulled up the agency for using the statements of approvers to "fill the gaps" in a failing investigation.
The court warned that allowing the agency to grant pardons simply to create a narrative against additional people would constitute a "grave violation of Constitutional principles." This reliance on coerced or incentivised testimony, rather than forensic or documentary proof, was viewed by the court as a subversion of the legal process.
Targeted implication and judicial accountability
The integrity of the CBI was further questioned regarding its selection of the "primary accused." LiveLaw highlights the court’s surprise at the agency’s decision to name public servant Kuldeep Singh as "accused number one" despite there being "absolutely no material against him." This perceived lack of objectivity led the court to take the extraordinary step of recommending a departmental inquiry against the CBI officials and the Investigating Officer involved.
By ordering a probe into its own investigators, the court has signalled that the agency’s conduct in this case bypassed professional diligence in favour of what appeared to be a pre-constructed political narrative.
Human and institutional cost
The verdict highlights a troubling disconnect between the agency’s claims and judicial reality, especially given that several accused spent over a year in jail before the case reached this stage.
As noted by Bar and Bench, the CBI had originally alleged that the 2021-22 policy was manipulated to facilitate cartelisation and kickbacks. However, the court found that the agency’s case did not survive even preliminary judicial scrutiny at the stage of framing charges.