New Delhi, August 13, 2026 : AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia have urged the Delhi High Court to dismiss the CBI’s revision petition challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case, arguing that the plea was filed with “unprecedented haste” and lacks specific grounds to establish any legal or factual error in the trial court’s decision.
In separate applications filed before the High Court, Kejriwal and Sisodia questioned the maintainability of the CBI’s revision petition, describing it as “bare-shell” and “non-specific.” They argued that the agency has failed to clearly identify the findings in the trial court’s discharge judgment that it considers legally perverse or irregular.
The applications point out that the CBI filed its revision petition within four hours of the Special Judge passing the discharge order, which ran into more than 500 pages. According to Kejriwal and Sisodia, the speed with which the petition was filed demonstrates that the CBI could not have adequately considered the detailed reasoning contained in the judgment.
They further argued that accepting such a petition in its present form would cause serious prejudice to the respondents.
Challenge to CBI’s Grounds
Kejriwal and Sisodia contended that the trial court had heard the matter extensively for more than three months before discharging the accused. However, they claimed that the CBI has not identified any specific finding in the judgment that is perverse, illegal or affected by procedural irregularity.
They also alleged that the CBI’s petition mainly relies on what they described as “self-serving facts” and does not explain how the trial court allegedly failed to properly appreciate the evidence against each accused.
The applications further state that the CBI has not specifically referred to any paragraph of the 1,133-paragraph discharge judgment to demonstrate alleged perversity.
According to the defence, the absence of specific references and supporting material makes the revision petition incomplete and liable to dismissal in its current form.
Kejriwal, Sisodia Stress Limited HC Jurisdiction
The former Delhi chief minister and his former deputy also argued that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and must be exercised cautiously, particularly when challenging a detailed order of discharge.
They maintained that the CBI is effectively seeking a fresh re-narration and re-examination of the evidence, despite failing to identify specific instances of grave perversity or illegality.
The defence argued that the High Court cannot use revisional jurisdiction simply to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record as if it were conducting a fresh trial.
CBI Defends Its Challenge
The CBI, however, has strongly opposed the trial court’s February 27 discharge order.
In its revision petition, the agency has described the order as “patently illegal” and “perverse”, alleging that it suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record.
The CBI has also accused the trial court of conducting a “mini-trial” at the stage of framing charges and of reaching its conclusions through what the agency termed a selective reading of the prosecution’s case.
The agency has further alleged that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the facts and made unwarranted adverse observations against the investigating agency and its investigating officer.
Trial Court Discharge
On February 27, 2026, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 other accused in the liquor policy case, observing that the prosecution case was unable to withstand judicial scrutiny and had been substantially discredited.
The CBI subsequently approached the Delhi High Court challenging the discharge order.
Justice Manoj Jain is scheduled to hear the CBI’s revision petition on August 17 and 18, 2026. On the previous hearing, the court had granted a final opportunity to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak to file their responses to the CBI’s plea.
The upcoming hearings are expected to focus on whether the CBI’s revision petition is legally maintainable and whether the trial court’s discharge order warrants interference by the High Court.
