3 min readFeb 28, 2026 06:16 AM IST First published on: Feb 28, 2026 at 06:16 AM ISTThe order of Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court, acquitting former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy CM, Manish Sisodia, among 23 of the accused discharged in the Delhi liquor policy case, is essential reading for the CBI and the government. It is a reminder of the fundamental salience of due process —much needed when central agencies are weaponised by the ruling party on a witchhunt against political opponents. Ever since the CBI filed the FIR in the case of the subsequently scrapped excise policy in August 2022, it cast a lengthening shadow on the Aam Aadmi Party. For the AAP, allegations of corruption were especially fraught, given that it was born in the throes of the Anna Hazare-led movement. The case weighed down the Kejriwal government, led to the spectacle of a sitting chief minister being sent to jail, and overhung the 2025 assembly election campaign in Delhi, arguably playing a role in the AAP’s defeat at the hands of the BJP. The court has now called a halt to this saga, and sent an unequivocal message: Not without due process.While striking down the CBI’s case of criminal intent and overarching conspiracy, the court has objected to its method — the CBI’s reliance on approver statements acquired after pardoning an accused. It has rebuked the agency, sternly and rightly, for using the expression “South Group” — the CBI claimed that individuals based in Hyderabad paid kickbacks to AAP leaders. “Region-based labelling”, the court said, constitutes “constitutional infirmity”, because “criminal trials must be about what the defendant did, not who the defendant is”. The court takes apart the CBI case, bit by bit, pointing out that the prosecution material does not meet the threshold of legally admissible evidence, that failure of a policy is not by itself proof of criminality, that allegations of conspiracy cannot rest on inferences or uncorroborated statements of witnesses. It points to the holes in the case because of lack of seizures or financial trail. “A procedure which permits prolonged or indefinite incarceration on the basis of a provisional and untested allegation… risks degenerating into a punitive process rather than a regulatory or investigative one,” it says.AdvertisementFor the AAP, especially Kejriwal and Sisodia, this is a moment of vindication. For the CBI and the government, this is a chastening moment, which will hopefully have a restraining effect when they next seek to unleash a vindictive politics. In times when checks and balances on power are weakening, a special court in Delhi has sent out a message resonant and reassuring in a democracy: Justice may be delayed but can never be denied.