Kejriwal and Sisodia Ask Delhi HC to Dismiss CBI’s Plea in Excise Policy Case

New Delhi

Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have approached the Delhi High Court, requesting the dismissal of the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revision petition in the excise policy case. The petition filed by the CBI challenges a trial court decision that previously discharged the senior AAP leaders.

In their separate applications, Kejriwal and Sisodia raised questions regarding the maintainability of the CBI’s plea, describing the agency’s petition as incomplete, vague, and filed with “unprecedented haste and a lack of seriousness.”

Key Arguments Raised by AAP Leaders

In their submission to the High Court, the AAP leaders highlighted several points challenging the CBI’s move:

• Unnecessary Haste: The leaders pointed out that the CBI filed its revision petition just four hours after the special judge issued the discharge order.
• Lack of Due Diligence: The petition notes that filing within four hours indicates the agency failed to properly examine or comprehend the special judge’s detailed judgment, which spanned over 500 pages.
• Unclear Allegations: The applicants stated that owing to the incomplete nature of the CBI’s plea, they were unable to ascertain the exact case being made against them.
• Risk of Prejudice: They argued that allowing such an incomplete petition to proceed would cause severe prejudice to the respondents.

Hearing Scheduled for August 17–18

Justice Manoj Jain is scheduled to hear the CBI’s petition on August 17 and 18. The plea challenges the trial court’s order issued on February 27, which discharged the accused. Previously, the court had granted a final two-week window to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak to submit their replies.

The AAP leaders emphasized that the trial court discharged all accused only after conducting extensive hearings over three months, and maintained that the CBI has failed to point out any specific illegality or procedural flaw in the lower court’s ruling.