Should the CBI investigate election campaigns? 4 takeaways from the Delhi liquor policy judgement

A Delhi court discharged AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and 21 others in the CBI’s liquor policy scam case yesterday. The judge didn’t mince words when it came to the central probe agency — he basically said their investigation was a mess, with a massive chargesheet that didn’t actually hold up when you looked at the evidence.

The court found that the CBI couldn’t prove a basic case against Sisodia. Things got even more awkward for the CBI when the judge pointed out that they had absolutely no material against the so-called “primary accused” Kuldeep Singh — so why was he even named the main accused in the first place?

As for Kejriwal, the judge said that the AAP supremo was dragged into this without any real evidence. Without solid proof, the court noted that the investigating agency can’t pin a conspiracy on someone. To top it all off, the judge recommended departmental proceedings against the CBI officer who led the investigation. 

The ripple effects of this ruling could go well beyond just this case. Here are four important takeaways from the case:

Should the CBI be in the business of investigating election campaigns?

Scrutinising election spending, campaign coordination, and political funding falls within the ECI’s constitutional jurisdiction — not the CBI’s. The court found the agency had “exercised power not vested in it by law” and warned that an investigative environment where scrutiny travels “indiscriminately from contesting candidates to small vendors who merely provide logistical support during elections risks chilling legitimate political participation”. In the court’s view, this approach did not just cross a legal line — it threatened the foundational guarantee of free and fair elections.

“More fundamentally, the investigation strays into the constitutionally demarcated domain of election expenditure. By scrutinising campaign logistics, accommodation arrangements, political volunteers, and alleged cash payments, the investigating agency, in substance, undertakes a self-conducted audit of election spending. This field falls within the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India. The assumption of such a role by an investigating agency amounts to an exercise of power not vested in it by law and runs contrary to the carefully balanced constitutional framework,” the judgement said. 

No real evidence for the Rs 100 crore bribery theory

The judgement dismissed the agency’s overarching theory of a Rs 100 crore bribery network.

“The alleged conspiracy, from its very inception, has progressively unravelled and, upon close scrutiny, is revealed to be nothing more than a speculative construct resting on conjecture and surmise, devoid of any admissible evidence.” The judgement further noted that trying the accused based on “investigative imagination” rather than legally admissible material would be a miscarriage of justice. 

As per the chargesheet, the CBI’s primary premise was that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 was intentionally manipulated to benefit a cartel of private liquor businessmen dubbed the ‘South Group’ in exchange for kickbacks. The judge held that the judiciary cannot penalise administrative errors or policy judgments without concrete proof of corrupt intent. 

The court traced forensically how the Excise Policy files moved through the system — and found that the policy went through thorough, multi-level institutional scrutiny before the Lieutenant Governor gave it his final approval. 

It observed, “The wisdom, efficacy, or eventual success or failure of a policy is not a matter for criminal adjudication. Administrative errors or incorrect judgments, without material suggesting corrupt intent, cannot attract criminal prosecution.”

Moreover, the court also struck down the CBI’s heavy reliance on the term “South Group” to describe the alleged cartel of private liquor businessmen. The judge ruled the label was completely baseless in law and rooted in regional stereotyping. The judge noted that such “region-based labelling carries an avoidable undertone” and creates a prejudicial impression that “serves no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose.”

Discharge of the top leadership

The CBI tried to pin the conspiracy on Kejriwal and Sisodia, but the court found the evidence wasn't there. The court noted bluntly that Kejriwal did not attend any conspiracy meeting in Delhi or Hyderabad, never met Sisodia during the relevant period, and never met co-accused K Kavitha during the alleged conspiracy window either. 

“Criminal law does not recognise guilt by association, nor does it permit the attribution of liability on the basis of speculative linkage or assumed influence,” the judgement noted.

Furthermore, it stated that “criminal law does not proceed on impression”. 

“It proceeds on admissible material. On closer examination, the apparent coherence rests largely on statements of witnesses who stand on similar footing. One accomplice-like witness is shown to support another. The approver’s version is said to be strengthened by a witness whose own role, as per the prosecution, is not free from suspicion. This is not independent corroboration; it is mutual reinforcement,” it added. 

On Sisodia, the CBI alleged he made a key cabinet Note (containing adverse legal opinions) from January 2021 disappear to hide the conspiracy. But when the court dug into the CBI’s own voluminous, unindexed electronic records — what it called “suppression by obscurity” — it found those opinions actually cleared him. They only opposed a lottery system that was ultimately scrapped, not the final policy. The court reprimanded the CBI for deliberately burying evidence to sustain a baseless case.

Indictment of the IO and fixing accountability

The court was profoundly dissatisfied with the manner in which the CBI conducted its investigation, prompting it to take the extraordinary step of recommending strict departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer.

The judge concluded that the investigation revealed a “premeditated and choreographed exercise”, characterised by procedural violations wherein “roles were retrospectively assigned to suit a preconceived narrative.”

Foremost among these was the malicious framing of Kuldeep Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner of Excise, who was prosecuted despite an absolute absence of documentary evidence, financial trails, or witness statements linking him to any crime. The IO placed him at the forefront of the chargesheet based solely on a late, hearsay statement from an approver who never even named him.

The court also flagged the misuse of the approver's law. An approver must make a “full and true disclosure” before a magistrate in exchange for a pardon – and that's supposed to be it. But the CBI kept summoning the approver back to the police station for over a year after his pardon, recording shifting supplementary statements under Section 161 CrPC to “fill gaps” in their case and rope in new targets. Most tellingly, AAP leader Sanjay Singh's name only appeared in an approver statement a full year later.

While courts ordinarily avoid indicting investigative discretion, the judge noted these lapses were “so fundamental that judicial silence would itself amount to abdication of duty.”

The CBI has already announced it will challenge the order in the Delhi High Court.

With inputs from Hasi Jain.

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.