A trial that promised political tremors ended in judicial demolition.
In a sprawling judgment stretching close to 600 pages, Special Judge Jitendra Singh acquitted all 23 accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case, including former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.
The verdict did more than clear names. It dismantled the prosecution’s architecture—beam by beam.
At the heart of the court’s reasoning was a simple but devastating conclusion: suspicion cannot substitute for proof.
Policy Is Not a Crime
The prosecution had argued that the Delhi Excise Policy was engineered to favour select players. The court saw something else entirely — a policy shaped through layers of departmental consultation, committee review, cabinet deliberation and approval by the Lieutenant Governor.
Judge Singh underlined a constitutional reality often forgotten in high-voltage prosecutions: governments make policy. Policies may fail. They may be withdrawn. They may even be unpopular. But unless there is clear evidence of quid pro quo, personal enrichment, or abuse of office, policy choices do not morph into criminal conspiracies.
No such evidence, the court said, was produced.
The clauses in the policy could not be traced to any clandestine draft supplied by an alleged “South Group.” Instead, the record reflected bureaucratic processing and institutional debate — not a covert meeting of minds.
Kejriwal: A Case Built on a Single Thread
The allegations against Kejriwal rested largely on the statement of an approver, Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy.
That was the problem.
The judge noted that the key claim — that a conversation implicating Kejriwal took place in the presence of 10 to 12 people — was never independently verified. Those present were either not examined or not cited. In criminal law, such omissions are not technicalities; they are fractures.
Mutual reinforcement between statements of co-accused or approvers does not amount to legal corroboration. Courts require independent confirmation. It was missing.
The ruling was blunt: when direct witnesses are available but not produced, reliance on a tainted source cannot cure the deficiency.
The Approver Problem
The prosecution leaned heavily on approver testimony, including that of Raghav Magunta. But the court found these statements uncorroborated by documents, financial trails, or independent witnesses.
More troubling, the judge observed that statements were recorded repeatedly over an extended period without adequate justification. The extraordinary device of granting pardon to an accomplice, the court warned, cannot become a tool for narrative construction.
An approver’s word, without external validation, cannot anchor a conviction.
Sisodia: Inference Is Not Evidence
As for Sisodia, the prosecution described him as the “architect” and “controlling force” behind the policy’s alleged conspiracy. The court found rhetoric where it expected records.
No documents tied him to illicit fund transfers. No recovery suggested personal gain. No financial trail traced money to him. No proof placed him in secret meetings or cash exchanges.
The attempt to link him indirectly through another accused rested on inference, not admissible evidence.
The court also pointed out a structural contradiction: the policy was processed constitutionally, involving the Council of Ministers and the Lieutenant Governor. Singling out one individual for a supposedly institutional decision strained legal logic.
A Judgment Framed in Principle
In closing, Judge Singh invoked Martin Luther King Jr., reminding that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere. He also cited the Latin maxim fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall.
The message was unmistakable.
Courts are not arenas for dominant narratives. They are forums for evidence. And in this case, after years of investigation and voluminous filings, the evidence did not hold.
The file now moves to the record room. The allegations, the court concluded, could not survive judicial scrutiny.
