A Delhi court sharply criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over its investigation into the excise policy case on Friday. The court dismantled the agency’s conspiracy theory and questioned the foundation of its probe.
The Rouse Avenue Court discharged all 23 accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy Manish Sisodia. The court pointed out that the prosecution’s narrative lacked legal support, calling it speculative and driven by preconceived assumptions.
Court’s Key Findings Against the CBI Probe
The court criticized the prosecution’s case for relying on “conjecture and speculative constructs” instead of legally admissible evidence. The CBI tried to present a coherent narrative, but the court found that “facts were arranged to support a predetermined conclusion.”
The agency’s theory relied on fragmented facts, urging the court to “join the dots” through assumption. However, criminal law does not permit such presumptions.
The CBI’s claim about a “12 percent wholesale margin” was deemed “demonstrably erroneous, economically illiterate, and legally unsustainable.”
The court stated that the investigation seemed like a “premeditated and choreographed exercise.” Roles were assigned retrospectively to support a preconceived conspiracy narrative.
The investigating officer showed disregard for the fact that public servants carried out routine duties while implementing government policy.
The probe amounted to a “calculated and sustained assault on the foundational tenets of the rule of law.” The court warned that such methodology risks turning criminal investigations into “an instrument of overreach.”
Inadequate Evidence and Unsubstantiated Claims
The CBI seemed driven by the assumption that “proceeds of crime” existed. The agency attempted to criminalize ordinary financial transactions without showing control, benefit, or criminal intent.
The prosecution narrative “collapsed under its own weight.” Features of the policy that the CBI labeled suspicious actually promoted competition and were not criminal.
The court criticized the CBI for conducting a “self-conducted audit” of election campaign logistics, a task reserved for the Election Commission.
Recommendations and Final Ruling
The court recommended that the investigating officer face departmental proceedings for framing public servants without material evidence.
It concluded that the case “wholly failed to survive judicial scrutiny and stands discredited in its entirety.”
The court deemed the term “South Group” used by the CBI arbitrary and prejudicial, with no evidentiary basis.
The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case relied on a “narrative superstructure unsupported by a factual base,” which criminal law does not permit.
