Delhi High Court Hears CBI Plea to Reinstate Charges Against AAP Leaders
The Delhi High Court is hearing a petition filed by the CBI that seeks to overturn a trial‑court order that discharged all accused in the Liquor Policy Case. The petition challenges the acquittal of senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia.
Key Developments (Live Updates)
- 16 March 2026, 12:27 PM IST: Advocate Mehta argued that the matter involves both legal and non‑legal aspects and urged the court to reject the trial‑court order swiftly.
- 16 March 2026, 12:27 PM IST: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan informed the bench that a SLP against the trial‑court order has been filed and requested that it be listed within the week.
Important Facts
- The hearing is before a bench headed by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.
- Last week, Justice Sharma noted that several observations of the trial court appeared prima facie erroneous while issuing notice on the CBI’s revision petition.
- Arvind Kejriwal wrote to the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the CBI petition to another bench, alleging bias.
- The High Court rejected Kejriwal’s request, prompting a writ petition in the Supreme Court for bench transfer.
Exam Relevance
Understanding this case helps aspirants grasp:
- The functioning and jurisdiction of the CBI in probing political corruption.
- The procedural hierarchy: trial court → High Court revision petition → possible Supreme Court intervention via SLP → writ petition for bench transfer.
- The role of judicial independence and perceived bias, a recurring theme in Indian polity and governance.
- Implications for policy‑making, as the case revolves around the liquor policy that affects public health, revenue and law‑and‑order considerations.
Way Forward
The court is expected to decide on the CBI’s request to revive the charges. If the High Court upholds the discharge, the matter may proceed to the Supreme Court via the pending SLP. A transfer of bench, if granted, could alter the dynamics of the hearing. Aspirants should monitor subsequent orders for insights into judicial review of political corruption cases and the checks‑and‑balances between investigative agencies and the judiciary.