Delhi High Court Hears CBI's Plea Against Discharge of AAP Leaders in Liquor Policy Case

The Delhi High Court is currently reviewing the CBI's appeal against the discharge of 23 individuals, including AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal, from a liquor policy case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the discharge order should not remain on record longer than necessary, citing concerns over judicial integrity. The trial court had previously criticized the CBI for lack of evidence in its charges against Kejriwal and others. As the case unfolds, the High Court has granted the respondents two weeks to respond to the CBI's claims, while Kejriwal's request to transfer the case was denied. This ongoing legal battle raises significant questions about the implications for the involved parties and the judicial system.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 16, 2026, 15:57 IST

CBI Challenges Discharge Order in High Court

On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) informed the Delhi High Court that the order discharging 23 individuals, including Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), from the liquor policy case should not remain on record for longer than necessary, as reported by a legal news source.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made this assertion following comments from N Hariharan, Kejriwal's attorney, who mentioned that the AAP chief has approached the Supreme Court regarding a High Court ruling that paused the trial court's negative remarks about the CBI.

Mehta acknowledged Kejriwal's right to contest the High Court's decision but insisted that if the Supreme Court petition was being used as a reason for delaying proceedings, it should be prioritized for listing this week.

The Solicitor General argued that it was unnecessary to seek a response from the AAP leaders since the trial court's complete record was accessible. He requested that Kejriwal and the other involved parties be given no more than a week to submit their replies.

“We strongly oppose the order,” Mehta stated in court. “It should not remain on record for even a moment longer than required.”

He described the discharge order as “perverse” and claimed its presence was detrimental to the judicial system.

Despite this, the High Court allowed the respondents two weeks to prepare their responses.

The trial court had issued the discharge order on February 27, criticizing the CBI for implicating Kejriwal and AAP leader Manish Sisodia without substantial evidence, noting that the chargesheet had significant gaps lacking witness support.

Additionally, the trial court indicated it would recommend a departmental investigation into CBI officials who named a public servant as the primary accused in the case, asserting that there was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent behind the excise policy.

The CBI has since filed an appeal against this discharge order.

Kejriwal had requested the High Court to reassign the case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to a different bench, but the Chief Justice of the High Court, Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, denied this request.