The Delhi High Court on Monday said that the observations made by the lower court during the dismissal of former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy in the CBI case were “prima facie erroneous” and issued notice in the agency’s appeal.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also stayed till March 16 the trial court’s February 27 order directing administrative proceedings against the CBI investigating officer and the observations against him, stating that the statements were “prima facie wrongly understood especially when they were made at the accusation stage itself”.
Read also | TAX POLICY CASE: Today the HC will hear ED’s petition seeking to strike out the lower court’s statements
Justice Sharma also asked the court to adjourn the money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate that arose out of the CBI case, and await the outcome of the CBI’s appeal against the February 27 ruling. “In the meantime, the Court of First Instance, where proceedings are still pending regarding the relevant case filed by the Enforcement Directorate, is requested to adjourn the case to a later date than the date fixed before this Court, and await the outcome of the present case,” the court said.
On February 27, the court discharged Kejriwal, his then deputy Manish Sisodia, former Telangana MP K Kavitha and others, concluding that he had no hesitation in saying that the CBI materials did not reveal even a prima facie case, let alone serious doubts. In his 601-page order, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Ross Avenue court also directed a departmental inquiry against the “wrong investigating officer” who had leveled charges against the accused in the absence of material evidence, holding that the CBI had misused its official position to conduct an unfair investigation.
But Justice Sharma seems to disagree with this view.
“This Court is of the view that certain factual inconsistencies referred to in the impugned order, and the observations made by the lower court in relation to the statements of witnesses and accreditors at the charging stage itself, prima facie appear to be erroneous and need to be considered when viewed against the backdrop of well-established law on charging and conspiracy as to whether such observations could have been made at the charging stage itself. In the circumstances, issue notice to all 23 defendants, in all permissible ways, including electronically, as well as through officer,” the High Court said in its order. The investigation in question will be returned at the next hearing date.”
Justice Sharma also asked Kejriwal, Sisodia and others to file their response to the CBI’s appeal, challenging the lower court’s February 27 order, by the next hearing date on March 16.
“As for the contentions regarding stay of observations made by the Investigating Officer in the case, this Court takes into consideration that such scathing remarks recorded in the impugned order and the reasons given for issuing such observations including, the conclusion that the Investigating Officer has misused his official position to conduct an unfair investigation, are prima facie fundamentally wrong especially when they are made at the charge stage itself. In view of the above, the observations are limited only to the stay of the Investigating Officer, even as the court added: “The date of the next hearing, including the direction that “It is recommended that administrative measures be taken against him.”
These developments came after the CBI’s counsel, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, urged the lower court to stop the “adverse observations” against its internal operations and pass an order stating that the February 27 ruling should not affect the money laundering case that arose out of the CBI case, arguing that the 601-page order effectively turned the basics of criminal law on their head and amounted to an “acquittal without trial.”
Terming the Delhi tax policy case as one of the biggest scams in the history of the national capital and a matter of national shame, the legal official said the agency conducted the investigation scientifically and proved every aspect of the alleged criminal conspiracy through extensive supporting material, including digital evidence and witness statements. The legal officer said that the ruling was issued “ignoring” the evidence collected by the agency, and the author of the ruling appeared to be more familiar with “constitutional law” than “criminal law.” He also added that the findings were “inherently false” and that the agency collected several documents, interrogated witnesses, collected emails, and WhatsApp chats, and its evidence was not up in the air.
No lawyer for the defendants appeared before the Supreme Court after prior notice.
Kejriwal, Sisodia and former Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh were among the prominent AAP leaders arrested in connection with the tax policy, with the federal agency alleging that kickbacks were paid. The policy was implemented for the 2021-22 financial year in November 2021, marking the government’s exit from retail sales of alcohol and allowing private companies to bid for licences, but was scrapped after former Delhi LG Vinay Kumar Saxena ordered an investigation based on a report by the chief secretary alleging financial irregularities.
The AAP has denied any wrongdoing and accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Union government of targeting political rivals.
Sisodia was arrested in February 2023 and spent about 17 months in prison before being granted bail by the Supreme Court of India. Kejriwal was arrested in March 2024, shortly before the general elections, campaigned on interim bail, and was granted regular bail in September 2024.
The CBI filed five indictments, while the ED investigated related money laundering allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The CBI fabricated the case at the behest of the BJP and it was exposed when the court found the matter not even fit for trial, AAP said on Monday. The agency’s failure to secure accommodation has left the lower court order intact, while the officers who prosecuted the case now fear disciplinary action, loss of service and imprisonment, said Saurabh Bharadwaj, AAP’s Delhi chief.
“Since the Ross Avenue court found that the entire matter was fake and fabricated, the truth is in front of everyone. The release of the accused is a higher stage than acquittal, because acquittal happens after the entire trial is conducted and the evidence and witnesses are examined. Here the court did not even consider the matter fit for trial,” Bharadwaj said. Delhi Education Minister Ashish Sood said the APC had constantly tried to give the case a political color and play the victim card.
Separately, the Delhi High Court is scheduled to hear on Tuesday a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) quashing the trial court’s February 27 observations. The trial court observed that investigations by the State Police, the CBI or the DG cannot be initiated or continued solely on the basis of allegations of irregularities in election financing and overspending, and criminal law, in particular the exceptional and coercive regimes of the Anti-Money Laundering Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, cannot be used as an alternative to the remedies of election law or a tool to convert political accusations into triable crimes.
According to the agency, the procedures were strictly limited to the case investigated by the Central Bank of Iraq, and comments could be submitted
