3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Feb 28, 2026 06:33 AM IST
Describing the CBI investigation as a “conscious abuse of official position” that struck at the core of the criminal justice system, a Delhi trial court, which Friday discharged AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others booked for alleged corruption in the Delhi excise policy case, has recommended departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer. It ruled that the prosecution of public servants was not supported by evidence.
Special (CBI) Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court said the investigation had crossed the line from flawed inquiry to institutional misconduct, making it necessary to fix accountability beyond merely discharging the accused.
The court said that “the course consistent with the duty of the Court is not merely to discount the tainted investigative material but also to recommend initiation of appropriate departmental proceedings against the erring investigating officer”. This needed to be done “so that accountability is fixed and the institutional credibility of the investigative machinery is preserved”.
The observation followed a sequence of adverse findings against the IO’s conduct. The court described the investigation as a “pre-meditated and choreographed exercise, wherein roles appear to have been retrospectively assigned to suit a preconceived narrative,” noting that public officials were prosecuted “solely on the basis of inadmissible hearsay attributed to an approver.”
The judge noted that the officials concerned were carrying out routine administrative responsibilities “under extraordinary pressure, often at personal risk” during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Criticising what it termed “anticipatory manipulation”, the court found that individuals were simultaneously kept in the column of suspects while also being presented as prosecution witnesses, a “conscious and calculated stratagem” designed to protect the investigation if the case failed.
“Such a course of action reduces the investigative process to a self-serving exercise, where legal technicalities are invoked not to uncover the truth, but to shield investigative lapses and to construct a post-facto defence in the event that suppression or distortion of material facts is exposed during judicial scrutiny,” the order stated.
Story continues below this ad
Allowing such conduct to pass without consequence, the court said, would erode public confidence and amount to “tacit judicial approval of investigative impropriety, an outcome which the rule of law does not permit”.
