Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia have filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, seeking to dismiss the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) revision plea that challenges their discharge in the excise policy legal proceedings. They have accused the CBI of urgency and a lack of seriousness in its approach.

Manish Sisodia submitted an application to the High Court, raising issues regarding the admissibility of the CBI’s revision petition. He pointed out that the application was made merely four hours after the trial court discharged him and 22 other accused, emphasising the haste with which the CBI proceeded.

The discharge order was passed by the Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts on February 27, 2026, following an extensive examination of arguments over a period of more than two months. This order runs to 549 pages and comprises 1,135 paragraphs, detailing the evidence and conclusions drawn by the court.

Arguments Against CBI’s Revision Plea

In his application, Sisodia contends that the CBI’s petition does not substantiate any claims of illegality or error in the discharge order. He observed that the CBI failed to pinpoint specific sections or findings that would illustrate such alleged deficiencies, describing the revision plea as an “Appeal in garb of Revision Petition”.

The former Deputy Chief Minister cited precedents from the Supreme Court, arguing that revisional jurisdiction is limited and should only address significant errors or disregarded material evidence. He reiterated that the CBI’s petition fails to identify anything from the trial court’s judgment that could be considered a gross error or injustice.

Owing to the lack of specific claims against his findings, Sisodia has argued that the CBI is attempting to revisit evidence rather than addressing legitimate judicial errors. He claims that such re-examination exceeds the permissible boundaries within which revisional authority can operate.

Concerns Over the CBI’s Approach

Furthermore, Sisodia raised alarms regarding the broad nature of the CBI’s revision plea, suggesting that it creates significant challenges for the respondents. He maintained that the agencies have not outlined specific errors leading to “grave prejudice,” leaving him and others unclear about the exact nature of the claims they must counter.

As a response, Sisodia has requested the Delhi High Court to dismiss the CBI’s Criminal Revision Petition No. 134 of 2026, asserting it is not maintainable. He recommended that the court could also issue any other appropriate rulings in the interest of justice.

This application, filed on August 12, 2026, through advocate Vivek Jain, includes an affidavit affirming its contents. The High Court is expected to take up this matter along with the main CBI revision proceedings on August 17.

Background of the Case

The case in question revolves around alleged irregularities related to the implementation and formulation of the now-defunct Delhi excise policy. The CBI has been investigating claims that several individuals and entities benefitted from these purported irregularities.

Both Kejriwal and Sisodia have consistently denied any wrongdoing. As the High Court prepares to assess the objections submitted by both politicians concerning the CBI’s challenges against their discharge, the focus remains on the procedural and jurisdictional aspects of the revision plea rather than the substance of the original allegations.

The latest developments highlight the legal intricacies present in cases involving high-profile political figures, with the judicial system navigating various aspects of legal validity and procedural adherence.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share