Mehbooba Mufti warns against misuse of Power after Kejriwal’s discharge in excise case

She noted there was no prima facie case or credible evidence, yet the accused faced years of incarceration, highlighting the dangers of misuse of power.
“Today’s judgement discharging Kejriwal, Sisodia & Kavitha in the excise policy case exposes the high-handedness of investigative agencies. When agencies are wielded like political swords, justice becomes the first casualty, and truth surfaces only after years of pain and tears. No prima facie case. No credible evidence. Yet years of incarceration. Nothing is more dangerous than the misuse of power and the weaponisation of institutions. Yet somehow it continues unabated,” Mufti posted on X.

The remarks come after a Special Court in Delhi earlier in the day discharged all 23 accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case relating to the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.
Special Judge (PC Act) Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court held that the prosecution had failed to disclose “even the threshold of a prima facie suspicion, far less the grave suspicion” required for framing of charges. The judge ruled the case “legally infirm, unsustainable, and unfit to proceed any further in law.”
The Court observed that when the material collected by the agency was tested on the touchstone of admissibility, relevance and probative value, “the appearance of a coherent conspiracy dissolves,” exposing the allegations as being founded on inadmissible material and post-facto reconstruction.
The Court said that the alleged overarching conspiracy, emphatically projected by the prosecution, stood “completely dismantled” when examined against the evidentiary record. It noted that after an exhaustive review of voluminous documents and statements of nearly 300 witnesses over more than two months, there was no legally admissible material connecting the accused to any criminal misconduct.
Among those discharged are former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and 21 others.
The Court categorically held that there was no material to suggest that the Excise Policy (DEP-21/22) was manipulated, altered or engineered to confer undue benefit upon any private individual or the alleged “South Group.” On the contrary, the contemporaneous record clearly established that the policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative exercise, undertaken after engagement with stakeholders and in adherence to prescribed procedures.
The judge noted that although there was no statutory requirement to obtain suggestions from the Lieutenant Governor, the file notings reflected that such suggestions were in fact sought, examined and incorporated — affirming the procedural integrity of the policy-making process.
The prosecution’s central allegation regarding payment of “upfront money” and its alleged recoupment was found to be devoid of legal substratum. The Court observed that in the absence of a tainted policy or demonstrably unlawful implementation, the prosecution theory was reduced to conjecture.
It further remarked that the investigation appeared to have stitched together disparate fragments to create an impression of a vast and complex conspiracy, without legally sustainable material. The attempt to link the alleged proceeds of crime to the Goa Assembly elections was also found to rest more on inference and assumption than on admissible evidence.
The Court was critical of the approach adopted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, particularly its reliance on approver statements. It cautioned that granting a pardon to an accused and then using his testimony to fill gaps in the prosecution’s case or rope in additional accused would undermine constitutional safeguards.
In a significant observation, the judge indicated that a departmental inquiry would be recommended against CBI officials for naming public servant Kuldeep Singh as accused number one in the case.
The FIR in the case was registered in August 2022 following a complaint by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V. K. Saxena, alleging that the now-scrapped excise policy was designed to favour select liquor licensees by reducing licence fees and fixing profit margins, resulting in kickbacks and losses to the exchequer.
However, the Special Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to meet the minimum legal threshold required at the stage of framing of charges. Compelling the accused to face a full-fledged trial in the absence of admissible evidence, the Court held, would amount to a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the criminal process. (ANI)