Delhi court discharges all 23 accused in excise policy CBI case

What the Record Shows

A special court in Delhi discharged all 23 accused in the Delhi excise policy case on 27 February 2026, declining to take cognisance of the CBI's chargesheet and holding that the material placed before it did not disclose a case fit for trial. Those discharged include the former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, the former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, K Kavitha and other named accused such as Vijay Nair, Arun Ramachandran Pillai and Rajesh Joshi. The discharge order ran to more than 600 pages and, per the record, followed nearly three months of argument and an examination of close to 40,000 pages of material.

The story here is the clearing, not the accusation. The trial court found that the conspiracy the CBI had alleged was not borne out by the evidence on the file. That is the current operative status of the CBI case: every accused stands discharged, and in law they are not held guilty.

The position is not final, and this report does not present it as such. The CBI has filed a revision petition against the discharge, numbered CRL.REV.P. 134/2026, before the Delhi High Court. Per the High Court's judgment dated 20 April 2026, the discharge order itself was never stayed; the court had earlier stayed only the trial court's adverse remarks and a direction for departmental action against the CBI investigating officer. The separate money-laundering proceeding run by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has not been dismissed and has been deferred pending the outcome of the revision. All the accused have consistently denied wrongdoing and have characterised the case as politically motivated; the CBI maintains its case in the pending revision.

How It Worked

The matter began with a CBI FIR registered in August 2022 under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the criminal-conspiracy provision of the Indian Penal Code. The ED subsequently registered an ECIR and filed several prosecution complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In one of those complaints the ED named the Aam Aadmi Party itself as an accused entity.

The CBI and the ED had alleged that the Delhi government's 2021-22 excise policy was framed and implemented to favour a group of liquor wholesalers and retailers, in particular by raising wholesaler margins in exchange for advance kickbacks that the ED alleged were routed through intermediaries it described as the "South Group." Those were the allegations as the agencies framed them; they were not findings.

On the strength of that investigation the agencies made a series of high-profile arrests. Manish Sisodia was arrested by the CBI in February 2023 and granted bail by the Supreme Court in August 2024. Arvind Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in March 2024 and granted bail by the Supreme Court in September 2024. K Kavitha was arrested by the ED in March 2024 and granted bail in August 2024.

What the trial court found the evidence did not establish is the heart of this story. In discharging the accused, the court held that the chargesheet's conspiracy theory was not supported by the material on record. Per the High Court's later judgment, one of the discharged accused argued that the trial court's findings addressed matters such as the non-recovery of the alleged money and the weight to be given to the statements of approvers. The court declined to frame charges on the basis before it.

Who Lost Money

The alleged loss in this matter was to the public exchequer rather than to any identified class of investors or depositors. The agencies alleged that the framing of the excise policy caused a loss of excise revenue to the Delhi state, and that the policy generated proceeds of crime for those said to have benefited. This report does not print the specific rupee figures that have circulated for the alleged revenue loss and the alleged proceeds of crime, because those figures could not be re-confirmed against the primary documents in this review; they should be read only as figures the agencies alleged, not as established sums.

Crucially, no loss attributable to the discharged persons has been established. Per the record, the trial court's reasoning touched on the non-recovery of the alleged money, and the discharge means no wrongdoing has been proved against any of the accused at this stage.

Those who bore tangible consequences in the meantime were the accused themselves. Sisodia spent roughly seventeen months in custody before the Supreme Court granted him bail; Kejriwal and Kavitha also spent months in custody before their release. That is a feature of this kind of matter worth recording: an accusation carries real costs well before any court tests whether it can be proved.

Where It Stands Now

As of today the CBI case stands as a discharge of all 23 accused, and that discharge has not been stayed. The CBI's challenge to it, CRL.REV.P. 134/2026, is pending before the Delhi High Court. On 20 April 2026 the High Court, per its judgment, rejected recusal applications filed by six of the discharged accused, holding that recording prima facie observations while granting interim relief is routine and does not ground a recusal. The revision on its merits remains to be decided.

The ED's money-laundering proceeding is a separate track. It has not been dismissed; per the High Court's record, the connected ED matter was adjourned pending the revision, and the validity of the sanction to prosecute has itself been the subject of challenge. For that reason it would be inaccurate to describe the accused as fully cleared, even though the operative status in the CBI case is a discharge.

A chargesheet, an ECIR or a provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. In this matter the presumption of innocence was never displaced, and the discharge reflects that the material did not cross the threshold for a trial.

What It Means

The value of reporting this outcome is precisely that discharges and acquittals are reported far less often than arrests. A discharge is a judicial decision taken before trial: the court examines whether the material, taken at its highest, discloses a case worth trying, and declines to frame charges if it does not. It is not the same as an acquittal after a full trial, and it is not the end of the road, because the prosecution can and here did seek to have it revised.

For a reader trying to make sense of enforcement news, the sequence in this case is instructive. An FIR and a chargesheet mark the allegation stage. Arrests and custody can follow long before any court weighs the evidence. A discharge, when it comes, is a finding that the material does not meet the threshold for trial, and even that can be carried upward on appeal. The lesson is to track the stage a matter has actually reached rather than the headline it generated at the outset. You can read enforcement developments as they unfold through the Oquilia enforcement archive, and the official orders themselves are published on court websites and on Indian Kanoon.

The practical takeaway is a matter of literacy, not fear. When you see a name attached to an enforcement action, note whether the record shows an allegation, a charge, an order, a conviction or, as here, a discharge, because those are very different things. Related coverage includes a special court closing a CBI case against a former Delhi minister and the Supreme Court granting bail in a PMLA cash-for-jobs matter, both of which turn on the same distinction between an accusation and a proven finding.

FAQ

Were the people named found guilty?

No. A Delhi special court discharged all 23 accused on 27 February 2026, declining to take cognisance of the CBI chargesheet. A discharge is a judicial finding that the material did not disclose a case fit for trial. The presumption of innocence was never displaced, and an allegation that fails to cross the threshold for framing charges is not a finding of wrongdoing.

What is the difference between a discharge and an acquittal?

A discharge is passed before trial: the court finds the material does not disclose a prima facie case and declines to frame charges. An acquittal comes after a full trial. Both mean the accused are not held guilty, but a discharge can be challenged by the prosecution in revision, as the CBI has done in this case.

Did the High Court stay the discharge?

No. Per the Delhi High Court's records, the discharge order itself was never stayed. On 9 March 2026 the court stayed only the trial court's adverse remarks and the direction for departmental action against the CBI investigating officer. On 20 April 2026 it rejected recusal applications by six of the discharged accused.

Is the case fully over?

No. The CBI has filed a revision petition against the discharge, pending before the Delhi High Court. The ED's separate money-laundering proceeding has not been dismissed; it has been deferred pending the outcome of the revision, and the sanction to prosecute has itself been under challenge. Describing the accused as fully cleared would be inaccurate.

Where can I read the official record?

The Delhi High Court's 20 April 2026 judgment in the CBI's revision petition, CRL.REV.P. 134/2026, which records the 27 February 2026 discharge and the procedural history, is available on Indian Kanoon.

This report is based on the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20 April 2026 in CRL.REV.P. 134/2026, which records the special court's discharge order of 27 February 2026, reviewed on 1 August 2026.