A Delhi trial court has discharged former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and 21 other accused persons in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) high-profile excise policy corruption case, ruling that the federal agency failed to make out a prima facie case against them. The order was delivered on February 27, 2026, by Special Judge Jitender Singh at the Rouse Avenue Courts in New Delhi.

The court examined the CBI’s chargesheet and the accompanying documents and said the agency “failed to present cogent material to proceed to trial” and that the chargesheet suffered from multiple “lacunae” and lacked witness statements or substantive evidence that could support the allegations made against the accused. As a result, the judge refused to frame charges against any of the 23 individuals named in the case and discharged them all from the matter.

Among those cleared along with Kejriwal and Sisodia were a mix of political leaders and others, including Kuldeep Singh, Narender Singh, Vijay Nair, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Ramchandra Pillai, Mootha Goutam, Sameer Mahendru, Amandeep Singh Dhall, Arjun Pandey, Butchibabu Gorantla, Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar, Arvind Kumar Singh, Chanpreet Singh Rayat, Kavitha Kalvakuntal (K. Kavitha), Durgesh Pathak, Amit Arora, Vinod Chauhan, Ashish Chand Mathur, and Sarath Chandra Reddy.

In its order, the court was critical of the manner in which the CBI conducted its investigation and built its prosecution case. The judge pointed out that the chargesheet contained internal contradictions and that none of the allegations had been backed by appropriate evidence that could form the basis for a trial. The court specifically said that with respect to Sisodia, the CBI had not established any prima facie case warranting the framing of charges, and regarding Kejriwal, the judge observed he had been implicated “without any cogent material on record.”

The case relates to alleged irregularities and misconduct in the crafting and implementation of the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22, which the CBI had claimed resulted in undue benefits to certain entities. The policy, introduced by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government, had been controversial since its inception, and after it was scrapped, the Lieutenant Governor’s office filed a complaint alleging irregularities and this led to the CBI FIR being registered in August 2022.

Earlier proceedings in this matter had included a court directive in May 2025 requiring the CBI to provide a detailed list of all notices, summons, and written communications issued in the case, along with any responses received. The judge had said that if the agency did not intend to rely on such documents at trial, they needed to be included as unrelied-upon documents (URDs) available for the accused to inspect. The CBI had opposed this on the ground that these communications formed part of the case diary and were not “evidence per se,” but the court rejected that argument and ruled the materials did not enjoy protection under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a related development earlier this year, the court also dismissed two complaints filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking action against Kejriwal for allegedly ignoring summons issued in connection with the excise policy investigation. The court held that no incriminating material had been made out against him in those complaints. That ED action was part of a money laundering probe linked to the same policy that the CBI had been investigating. Kejriwal, who was arrested in the ED case, was later granted bail by the Supreme Court.

The discharge order effectively ends the CBI’s excise policy case against Kejriwal, Sisodia and the other accused at the trial court level, unless the prosecution challenges the ruling before a higher court. Some observers expect the CBI to appeal the decision and seek to have the case revived in the Delhi High Court.

This development marks a major legal moment in one of India’s most prominent political-legal battles in recent years, underscoring the judiciary’s role in ensuring that prosecutions are supported by adequate evidence before they proceed to full trial.