A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case, holding that the material placed by the CBI does not disclose even a prima facie case that he manipulated the policy or participated in a criminal conspiracy.Sisodia was “principal architect and controlling force behind the alleged conspiracy”.Documentary record reflected a policy that was framed through institutional consultation rather than unilateral decision-making. In its order, the special judge noted that an excise policy is not framed by a single authority but moved through multiple administrative and constitutional stages, including departmental examination, Cabinet approval and interaction with the L-G’s office. “The attribution of criminal intent to a policy decision… must be tested against this collective and layered decision making process,” it observed.Also Read | Kejriwal role as ‘apex controller’ built on a single witness statement; doesn’t meet the required legal standard: CourtChargeRelying on three policy drafts from March 2021, CBI alleged that recommendations of an expert committee were ignored to introduce provisions such as a 12% wholesale margin, relaxed eligibility conditions and changes in licensing.Examining file notings and committee reports, the court said that the material instead showed “structured deliberation and administrative refinement”. What emerges is a process of policy evolution marked by “continuity, consultation and institutional engagement”.On the central allegation of the increase in wholesale margins, the court said that the change replaced an uncapped system with a uniform rate. “A policy that replaces an uncapped negotiable margin with a fixed standard cannot, on its face, be said to enlarge the scope for windfall accumulation,” it said.Story continues below this adThe CBI alleged that Sisodia falsely attributed several policy suggestions to the L-G.The court relied on contemporaneous records and witness statements to conclude that the file reflected consultation at multiple levels. “The official record reflects consultation, communication and institutional concurrence at the highest executive level,” it said, adding that a conspiracy theory based on “misattribution of inputs” could not stand when official documents showed “shared deliberation.”Must Read | Actions by companies named as accused or beneficiaries were legitimate, says courtChargeAdverse legal opinions suppressed through removal of a Cabinet note.Story continues below this adThe court said suppression could not be inferred without proof of intentional concealment. “The allegation of removal cannot rest on conjecture. There must be material to indicate conscious and intentional suppression,” it said, noting that the substance of legal opinions was later incorporated into subsequent documents.Illegal gratification amounting to Rs 90-100 crore was generated through intermediaries.The court recorded that no financial trail linked Sisodia to any payment. “The prosecution has not produced a single recovery, document or financial trail linking him with the alleged transfer of funds. The allegation of monetary exchange remains unsubstantiated so far as he is concerned,” it said. Attempts to also connect him through the co-accused, Vijay Nair, were “inferred rather than demonstrated”, it added.Fabricated public consultation emails were used to justify policy changes.Story continues below this adThe court noted that only six emails out of more than 14,000 were questioned and none were shown to have been directed by Sisodia.Don't Miss | Act against probe officer who investigated Delhi excise policy case, need to fix accountability: Judge to CBIChargeDestruction of a mobile phoneThe court held that the allegation did not establish obstruction of investigation, observing that “a simpliciter change of a mobile handset… is not per se unlawful” in the absence of proof that incriminating material existed on the device.Other observationsThe bench pointed to what it described as a “structural inconsistency” in the prosecution’s case — either official records showing consultations were genuine, weakening allegations of concealment, or the records themselves were fabricated, a claim neither pleaded nor supported by evidence.Story continues below this adIt also noted that the prosecution’s case relied on a selective reading of records. “The allegations… do not generate grave suspicion warranting trial,” it said, adding that the “edifice of conspiracy… stands dismantled when the documents are read as a whole”.