The Delhi HC on 9 March 2026 issued a notice on the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea against the trial court’s order that discharged Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the alleged liquor‑policy corruption case. The court also directed the trial court to defer the Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings until a later date. Key Developments The CBI challenged the discharge order, arguing that the trial court ignored voluminous evidence, including approver statements and forensic material. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered a stay on the trial court’s observations against the investigating agencies. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that the discharge should not impede ongoing ED money‑laundering proceedings. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 16 March 2026. The trial court had earlier criticized the CBI for a “voluminous chargesheet” with lacunae and for implicating the former Delhi CM without cogent material. Important Facts 23 persons, including Kejriwal , Sisodia and K Kavitha , were discharged on 27 February 2026. CBI examined 164 witnesses, collecting emails, WhatsApp chats and forensic evidence linking the alleged conspiracy. The excise (liquor) policy of 2021 aimed to privatise Delhi’s liquor trade, later withdrawn after allegations of irregularities. Manish Sisodia spent ~530 days in jail; Kejriwal spent ~156 days, released on 13 Sept 2024 after Supreme Court bail. The Enforcement Directorate, a financial‑crime agency, had also filed a money‑laundering case related to the same policy. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several GS topics: the role and powers of investigative agencies like the CBI and the ED ; judicial review and the discharge stage in criminal procedure; and the political implications of policy‑making, especially the liquor policy . Understanding the interplay between law, governance and political accountability is essential for GS‑2 and GS‑3 aspirants. Way Forward The Delhi High Court’s notice signals a possible re‑examination of the discharge order. If the CBI’s challenge succeeds, the case may proceed to trial, testing the robustness of investigative evidence and judicial scrutiny. Aspirants should monitor subsequent judgments for insights into procedural safeguards, the limits of prosecutorial discretion, and the impact of high‑profile corruption cases on federal‑state relations.