At different points in the country’s history, the judiciary has played a crucial role in strengthening and safeguarding the Constitution and democracy. The judiciary has earned the reputation of being the ultimate institution against the executive, legislature, and various investigative agencies. It has established itself as a responsible institution, thereby demonstrating the reality of the rule of law. This is why the citizens of the country continue to place their trust in the judiciary.
In the high-profile Delhi liquor scam, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi acquitted former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, along with Telangana politician K. Kavitha, among others. This verdict reinforces the fundamental importance of impartial legal processes. The court also raised several questions regarding the functioning and investigative methods of the central investigative agency, the CBI.
Among the general public, a debate has emerged on whether agencies like the CBI and ED (Enforcement Directorate) file cases against opposition leaders or others as part of a planned conspiracy. Allegations against these agencies are not new; historically, governments—regardless of which party is in power—have often used central agencies as instruments to target political opponents.
The court clearly stated that allegations without concrete and sufficient evidence cannot be relied upon. It noted that the CBI’s “conspiracy theory” in the liquor scam case was based on assumptions. The liquor scam had created a political storm that affected Arvind Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), contributing to their defeat in the Delhi Assembly elections at the hands of the BJP. Corruption allegations against AAP, which emerged from the social movement led by activist Anna Hazare, had shifted the political narrative. The CBI’s lengthy investigation resulted in a 600-page chargesheet, which contained many contradictory elements. The court even criticized the naming of former Deputy Excise Commissioner Kuldeep Singh as the first accused. It also observed that there was no prima facie case against Manish Sisodia.
Rejecting the CBI’s alleged criminal intent and wide-ranging conspiracy, the court criticized its methodology—particularly relying on witness statements obtained after granting a pardon to an accused. The court reprimanded the agency for using terms like “Dakshin Group.” The CBI had claimed that individuals based in Hyderabad had bribed AAP leaders. The court said that “region-based labeling” constitutes a “constitutional flaw” because in criminal cases, the focus should be on the actions of the accused, not their identity.
Upon examining the case in detail, the court noted that the prosecution’s material did not meet the standards of legally admissible evidence. A policy failure does not in itself constitute a crime, and conspiracy allegations cannot be based on assumptions or unverified witness statements. The court also highlighted procedural gaps, including the absence of seized or financial evidence, and stated: “A process that allows prolonged or indefinite detention based on a temporary and unverified allegation… turns a regulatory or investigative process into a punitive mechanism, which is risky.”
Throughout history, high-profile scams have created a media uproar in India, such as the Bofors scandal, where the accused were eventually acquitted by the courts. The credibility of investigative agencies has been steadily declining, and public perception increasingly views these agencies as targeting political figures without strong evidence.
While the AAP government’s liquor policy had been criticized as violating ethical principles—such as distributing free liquor bottles, which contravened social responsibilities—the court’s verdict has cleared Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others of corruption charges. This decision gives Kejriwal an opportunity to bounce back politically in Delhi and opens the path for aggressive national-level politics in states like Punjab, Gujarat, and Goa.
Meanwhile, the Congress continues to claim that the AAP has become the BJP’s “B team,” asserting that Kejriwal has been absorbed into the BJP’s political machinery. The BJP has also voiced strong reactions. Nevertheless, the AAP has received a new lease on political life, and the activity and engagement of Kejriwal and his team are expected to increase.
The broader question that arises from this verdict is the credibility of investigative agencies like the CBI and ED. Given the low conviction rates in the cases these agencies pursue, their reputation has suffered. It is imperative to critically evaluate the functioning of these investigative agencies and the competence of their officials.
