By Suresh Unnithan
The verdict delivered by the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on February 27, 2026, has ignited widespread debate on the integrity and impartiality of India’s premier investigative agencies, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In a scathing 598-page order, Special Judge Jitendra Singh discharged all 23 accused—including former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and Telangana Jagruthi president K. Kavitha—in the high-profile Delhi excise policy case. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case, finding no evidence of any overarching conspiracy, criminal intent, bribery, quid pro quo, or financial trails linking the accused to illicit gains.
The judge strongly reprimanded the CBI, describing the probe as “premeditated and choreographed,” speculative, reliant on hearsay and uncorroborated approver statements, and riddled with procedural lapses that violated constitutional principles. In a rare and pointed rebuke, the court directed a departmental inquiry against the erring investigating officer for framing charges absent material evidence, terming such actions a conscious abuse of official position that undermines the criminal justice system. The order further noted that the CBI’s voluminous chargesheet was “wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny” and stood “discredited in its entirety,” with gaps in evidence, internal contradictions, and no tangible proof beyond conjecture.
The case, popularly known as the “Delhi liquor scam,” originated from a leaked Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report alleging procedural irregularities in the 2021-22 excise policy. It accused the accused of manipulating policy formulation, retail licensing, and profit-sharing to facilitate kickbacks worth around Rs 100 crore. However, the court emphasized that mere policy decisions or approvals, without dishonest intent or documented pecuniary advantage, do not constitute criminal liability. No documentary, electronic, or financial evidence substantiated claims of bribes or corruption.
This landmark discharge exonerates the accused, who faced prolonged detention—Sisodia for over 530 days and Kejriwal for 156 days—amid intense media trials that many described as punishment without proof. It delivers a clear directive: investigative agencies must operate strictly within the law and on concrete evidence, not as extensions of political agendas.
Parallels with the infamous 2G Spectrum case are striking, highlighting systemic issues in high-profile probes. In the 2G scandal, which erupted in 2010 under the UPA government, former Telecom Minister A. Raja and others were accused of allocating 2G spectrum licenses at undervalued prices, causing a presumptive loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore based on a CAG report’s hypothetical auction scenarios. The CBI investigated allegations of bribes, favoritism to ineligible firms like Unitech and Swan Telecom, and policy manipulations, leading to arrests and prolonged trials. However, in 2017, a special CBI court acquitted all 17 accused, ruling the case baseless and fabricated by “artfully arranging a few selected facts and exaggerating things.” Similar to the Delhi case, the 2G probe relied on speculative CAG figures—later downsized by CBI to Rs 30,984 crore—and uncorroborated evidence, with the court noting no proof of conspiracy or financial wrongdoing. Both cases underscore how CAG reports with inflated “presumptive losses” fuel media frenzy and political narratives, only for courts to dismantle them due to evidentiary failures. In 2G, the process inflicted reputational damage despite acquittals; here, it mirrors political vendetta against opposition figures.
The ruling invokes accountability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Key provisions include BNS Section 212 (furnishing false information to a public servant, punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment or fine); BNS Section 228 (fabricating false evidence, such as creating misleading documents or circumstances to influence proceedings); BNS Section 229 (punishment up to seven years’ imprisonment and fine for fabricating evidence used in judicial proceedings); BNS Section 238 (tampering with or concealing evidence to protect offenders, up to seven years scaled by gravity); and Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy to destroy evidence or supply false information, with punishment aligned to the offense). These enable criminal prosecution of erring officers beyond internal inquiries.
The verdict’s impact is profound. It deepens erosion of public trust in the CBI and ED, given persistently low conviction rates (often below 1% for ED cases accounting for pendency) and accusations of selective targeting of opposition leaders. It may encourage stricter judicial scrutiny of chargesheets, deter speculative arrests, and push for reforms like independent oversight to limit executive influence. Politically, it bolsters opposition narratives of vendetta, with patterns since 2014 showing disproportionate high-profile cases against non-ruling figures—echoing the 2G era’s fallout that contributed to UPA’s electoral losses despite later vindication.
Reactions have been swift and polarized. Kejriwal, visibly emotional, reiterated his “kattar imaandaar” (staunchly honest) stance, dared Prime Minister Narendra Modi to hold fresh Delhi elections, and vowed to quit politics if the BJP wins more than 10 seats. AAP leaders hailed it as vindication against political persecution. The CBI, however, moved the Delhi High Court hours after the order to challenge the discharge, arguing certain investigative aspects were overlooked.
The Supreme Court has long criticized such partisan probes. In 2025, Justice Abhay S. Oka rebuked the ED for “crossing all limits” and acting like a “crook,” noting baseless allegations without evidence. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted dismal conviction rates and called for restraint. These align with the 2017 Common Cause v. Union of India ruling labeling the CBI a “caged parrot” prone to interference, and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022, revisited) mandating consideration of exonerating material before arrests under PMLA. Bail decisions for Sisodia and Kejriwal in 2024 underscored liberty’s sanctity amid trial delays.
These judicial signals reveal a systemic issue: speculative investigations threaten democracy and the rule of law. The Rouse Avenue verdict, much like the 2G acquittal, stands as a watershed, compelling agencies to prioritize impartiality and evidence over expediency. Without safeguards—fixed director tenures, parliamentary oversight, and stringent evidentiary standards—misuse could endure, further undermining institutional credibility. In India’s democracy, fair and unbiased probes are indispensable to justice and integrity.
*Inputs from Nanditha Subhadra