‘Aspects ignored’: CBI to move Delhi high court over relief to Arvind Kejriwal, others in excise policy case

THe telephone exchange Bureau of investigating (CBI) has decided to “ now” dispute a tribulation court’s order discharging all 23 accused, including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, in the Delhi excise policy case, asserting that key aspects of its investigation “have not been considered adequately” or were “ignored” in the ruling.“The CBI has decided to appeal in the high court against the judgement of the trial court immediately since several aspects of investigation have either been ignored or not considered adequately,” a spokesperson from the federal agency said.The agency had described the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) as “a beneficiary” of the alleged ill-gotten gains from the excise policy and held Kejriwal, as its national convenor, liable. However, unlike the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the CBI did not name AAP as an accused in its charge sheet.Also Read: Kejriwal, Sisodia among 23 discharged in liquor policy case: How it's different from acquittal, why that mattersCiting witness statements, the CBI alleged that Kejriwal was among the main conspirators in the formulation of the policy from the “very beginning” and “had a pre-conceived idea” of privatising the liquor trade in Delhi and dividing the city into retail zones through auctions.The agency claimed that of the alleged ₹100 crore kickbacks received from the so-called South Group in lieu of liquor licences, ₹44.45 crore was transferred to Goa between June 2021 and January 2022 through “hawala channels” for AAP’s election campaign. Similar allegations were made by the ED in its charge sheets.The discharge order by special judge Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court on Friday came as a setback for the federal agency, as officials involved in the probe said they had conducted a two-year investigation and gathered documentary evidence and statements to show that a lobby of liquor manufacturers and distributors influenced the policy.“It’s a sad day because the court has completely ignored CBI’s evidence,” said an officer who did not wish to be named.Also Read: Court slams CBI use of 'South' in liquor policy case against Kejriwal, Kavitha; cites ‘Dominican’ example from USDuring the investigation, the CBI alleged that Vijay Nair, former communications in-charge of AAP and a close aide of Kejriwal, contacted liquor manufacturers and traders from March 2021, seeking undue gratification in exchange for incorporating favourable provisions in the 2021-22 excise policy.The agency relied heavily on the statement of Magunta Srinivasulu Reddy, a member of Parliament from Ongole, who claimed he met Kejriwal on March 16, 2021, at the Delhi Secretariat and sought support for liquor business interests. According to the charge sheet, Kejriwal assured support and directed him to contact K Kavitha, stating she was working with his team.The CBI and ED both claimed, citing Reddy’s testimony, that Kejriwal also asked him to provide monetary funding to AAP. The CBI said this allegation “is corroborated from the contemporaneous documentary material on record.”The agency further alleged that on March 20, 2021, at her residence in Hyderabad, K Kavitha told Reddy that ₹100 crore needed to be arranged as upfront payment for AAP by March 2021. It also alleged that the L1 wholesale licence granted to Indospirits — a company in which K Kavitha and Reddy’s son Raghav Magunta had stakes and which secured nine zones in Delhi — was issued in violation of rules and despite pending complaints of cartelisation and blacklisting, allegedly on the explicit direction and coercion of co-accused Manish Sisodia.Kejriwal was first questioned by the CBI in April 2023 and spent 156 days in prison in connection with the case, while Sisodia spent more than 500 days in jail.According to the CBI, a Group of Ministers (GoM) was formed by the Delhi government to frame the policy. In February 2021, eight to ten meetings were held in which data was sought from the excise department, but “no proper minutes or record of discussions of the said meetings were prepared.”Also Read: CBI to move Delhi high court over relief to Arvind Kejriwal, others in excise policy caseThe agency alleged there was no decision on incorporating the GoM report, no discussion on a wholesale model and no study regarding a 12% profit margin for wholesalers, as reflected in court documents.The CBI further alleged that the new policy was formulated on May 20 and 21, 2021, and “processed and approved by the council of ministers through circulation on May 21, 2021 in a very hurried manner despite it being the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic.”On the alleged money trail, the CBI pointed to AAP’s election expenditure statement submitted to the Election Commission of India for the 2022 Goa Assembly elections. It said the party declared total expenditure of ₹3,49,45,345, of which ₹2,43,30,760 was spent on media advertisements and propaganda, while only ₹21,33,714 was shown as spent on publicity materials such as posters, banners, badges, stickers, cut-outs, hoardings and flags.“This statement regarding election expenditure submitted by AAP regarding Goa assembly elections is totally based on the payments made through bank transactions. However, the major payments made through cash to different vendors, assembly managers, booth in-charge, volunteers etc engaged by AAP, as revealed during investigation, have been suppressed,” the CBI charge sheet stated.“How can all this evidence be ignored by the court?” asked another CBI officer.The Delhi government’s 2021-22 excise policy sought to revamp the city’s liquor trade by shifting from a sales-volume-based regime to a licence-fee model, promising upgraded retail outlets without metal grilles and introducing discounts and promotional offers for the first time.However, the policy was scrapped after Delhi lieutenant governor Vinai Kumar Saxena recommended a probe into alleged irregularities. The government reverted to the 2020-21 regime, while AAP alleged that last-minute changes by the lieutenant governor’s predecessor led to lower-than-expected revenues.