Delhi High Court Calls Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia Delay 'Childish' in Excise Case

In a sharply worded exchange, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and AAP MLA Durgesh Pathak a final opportunity of four weeks to file their replies to the CBI’s challenge against their discharge in the Excise Policy case, while the Solicitor General labelled the defense’s request for more time as a “childish way to get the matter adjourned.” The court fixed October 5 and 6 for arguments, making it clear that no further adjournments would be permitted.

Background of the Excise Policy Case

The case stems from the alleged irregularities in the formulation and implementation of Delhi’s now-scrapped excise policy for 2021-22. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR in August 2022, accusing the then Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia of manipulation in the policy’s framing, which allegedly favored certain liquor wholesalers. The probe also implicated Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and MLA Durgesh Pathak, though the trial court discharged all three accused in the case on May 20, 2024. The CBI promptly challenged that discharge order before the Delhi High Court, filing a revision petition in June.

The CBI’s revision petition runs into 103 pages, according to defense submissions, and raises multiple grounds challenging the trial court’s reasoning that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case against the accused. The agency contends that the discharge order was passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and that it effectively sheltered the accused from facing trial.

‘Childish’ Delay Tactics: Court’s Strong Stance

When the matter came up before Justice Manoj Jain on Wednesday, senior advocates N Hariharan (for Kejriwal) and Rebecca John (for Sisodia) sought four weeks’ time to file comprehensive replies, arguing that the CBI’s written submissions contained numerous additional grounds that required detailed response.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, vehemently opposed the request, reminding the court that on July 16, a final opportunity had already been given to the accused to file their replies. “They are saying they have got a great order. I am saying it is not worth the paper it is written on… Four weeks is not a fair request. My lord knows it is not fair. This is a childish way to get the matter adjourned,” SG Mehta submitted, his tone conveying the agency’s frustration over what it perceives as deliberate delays.

The court, after hearing both sides, ultimately granted the accused one last chance, giving them four weeks to file their replies. However, Justice Jain underscored the finality of this indulgence: “We will have it on October 5 and October 6. I am making it clear that we will start hearing arguments from the prosecution.” The bench added that no further adjournments would be entertained.

Preliminary Objections and Piecemeal Hearing Rejected

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary, representing Durgesh Pathak, raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition. He argued that the court should first decide whether the petition was maintainable before delving into the merits of the case.

Justice Jain, however, rejected this approach, stating that he would not proceed in a “piecemeal” manner. “I am saying this will not be in piecemeal. Arguments will be heard in one go,” the court said. This decision signals the court’s intention to conduct a comprehensive hearing that addresses all legal issues — including the maintainability challenge and the merits of the discharge order — in a single session, avoiding the risk of protracted litigation.

Legal Analysis: Revision Petitions and the Scope of Discharge Orders

The CBI’s revision petition invokes Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the High Court to examine the legality and propriety of any order passed by a subordinate court. The standard for overturning a discharge order is high: the High Court must be satisfied that the trial court’s decision was manifestly erroneous, capricious, or perverse, or that it failed to consider material evidence.

In the present case, the CBI has argued that the trial court’s discharge order ignored the voluminous evidence collected during the investigation, including witness statements, financial records, and call data records. The agency asserts that the accused’s role in the formulation of the excise policy warrants a full trial, even if the policy itself was later repealed.

The defence, on the other hand, is expected to argue that the CBI’s allegations are based on conjectures and that the revision petition lacks merit as the discharge order was soundly reasoned. The preliminary objection raised by Pathak’s counsel suggests that the CBI’s petition may be barred by limitation or fails to meet the threshold for interference under Section 397.

The court’s decision to hear arguments in one go, including on maintainability, is strategically significant. It prevents the defense from fragmenting the proceedings and possibly delaying the final outcome. In practice, such a combined hearing compels both sides to prepare fully on all issues, expediting the process.

Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System

This case highlights the perennial tension between the right to a fair hearing and the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The CBI’s sharp criticism of the defense’s time request as “childish” underscores the agency’s efforts to push back against what it sees as dilatory tactics. The court’s willingness to grant one final opportunity while setting a firm argument schedule reflects a balanced approach: ensuring procedural fairness while discouraging abuse of process.

For legal practitioners, the ruling serves as a reminder that courts are increasingly intolerant of delay for delay’s sake, especially in high-profile cases involving public figures. The bench’s refusal to entertain a piecemeal hearing also establishes a useful precedent for revision petitions, encouraging courts to tackle all preliminary and substantive issues simultaneously where practicable.

Moreover, the October 5–6 dates will likely be closely watched by the legal community, as the outcome of the CBI’s revision petition could set the stage for whether the accused will face trial in one of the most politically charged criminal cases in recent Delhi history.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has drawn a clear line: the defense in the Excise Policy case must file its replies within four weeks, and arguments will begin on October 5 without further adjournments. The court’s sharp rebuke of the delay tactics, combined with its insistence on a consolidated hearing, signals a firm judicial approach aimed at ensuring that the revision petition is resolved efficiently. As the case moves toward a decisive hearing, all eyes will be on Justice Manoj Jain’s courtroom in early October.