A Delhi court has discharged Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the corruption case linked to the alleged liquor policy scam, marking a significant legal development in one of the most high-profile political cases in recent years. The decision was reported by Live Law and quickly triggered reactions across political circles.
Arvind Kejriwal & Manish Sisodia Acquitted: Post by Bhagwant Mann
Responding to the verdict, Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann stated that “truth always triumphs,” asserting that the court’s ruling has brought facts before the public. He added that the truth in other pending matters would also emerge with time, expressing confidence in the judicial process.
DON'T MISS
Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia discharged in liquor policy case
The alleged liquor policy case had drawn national attention, with investigative agencies probing claims of irregularities in Delhi’s excise policy formulation and implementation. Both leaders had denied wrongdoing throughout the investigation, calling the allegations politically motivated.
Legal observers note that a discharge order indicates the court found insufficient grounds to proceed to trial based on the available evidence. Such an outcome can substantially alter the legal trajectory of a case, though agencies may still explore legal options depending on procedural provisions.
The ruling is expected to influence political narratives ahead of upcoming electoral contests, with supporters of the leaders portraying the decision as vindication, while opponents are likely to await detailed court reasoning before responding formally.
The development has prompted strong reactions from party workers and supporters, many of whom described the court’s decision as a moment of relief after months of legal and political uncertainty. Celebrations were reported at several party offices, where workers distributed sweets and raised slogans in support of the leaders.
Legal experts say the order could reshape the broader narrative surrounding the case, especially because discharge at this stage means the court did not find sufficient material to frame charges. Some analysts pointed out that such rulings often influence parallel investigations and related proceedings, though each case is decided independently on its own evidence.
Sources familiar with the matter indicated that investigative authorities will study the detailed judgment before deciding on their next legal course, including whether to challenge the order in a higher court. Procedurally, such appeals are permitted if agencies believe relevant evidence was not adequately considered.
Political observers note that the verdict may have wider implications beyond the courtroom, particularly in shaping public perception and campaign messaging. Supporters are projecting it as proof of vindication, while opposition voices have urged caution, stressing that legal processes can involve multiple stages and outcomes.
