Verdict vindicates Kejriwal, and due process

The order of Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court, acquitting former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his deputy CM, Manish Sisodia, among 23 of the accused discharged in the Delhi liquor policy case, is essential reading for the CBI and the government. It is a reminder of the fundamental salience of due process —much needed when central agencies are weaponised by the ruling party on a witchhunt against political opponents. Ever since the CBI filed the FIR in the case of the subsequently scrapped excise policy in August 2022, it cast a lengthening shadow on the Aam Aadmi Party. For the AAP, allegations of corruption were especially fraught, given that it was born in the throes of the Anna Hazare-led movement. The case weighed down the Kejriwal government, led to the spectacle of a sitting chief minister being sent to jail, and overhung the 2025 assembly election campaign in Delhi, arguably playing a role in the AAP’s defeat at the hands of the BJP. The court has now called a halt to this saga, and sent an unequivocal message: Not without due process.

While striking down the CBI’s case of criminal intent and overarching conspiracy, the court has objected to its method — the CBI’s reliance on approver statements acquired after pardoning an accused. It has rebuked the agency, sternly and rightly, for using the expression “South Group” — the CBI claimed that individuals based in Hyderabad paid kickbacks to AAP leaders. “Region-based labelling”, the court said, constitutes “constitutional infirmity”, because “criminal trials must be about what the defendant did, not who the defendant is”. The court takes apart the CBI case, bit by bit, pointing out that the prosecution material does not meet the threshold of legally admissible evidence, that failure of a policy is not by itself proof of criminality, that allegations of conspiracy cannot rest on inferences or uncorroborated statements of witnesses. It points to the holes in the case because of lack of seizures or financial trail. “A procedure which permits prolonged or indefinite incarceration on the basis of a provisional and untested allegation… risks degenerating into a punitive process rather than a regulatory or investigative one,” it says.

For the AAP, especially Kejriwal and Sisodia, this is a moment of vindication. For the CBI and the government, this is a chastening moment, which will hopefully have a restraining effect when they next seek to unleash a vindictive politics. In times when checks and balances on power are weakening, a special court in Delhi has sent out a message resonant and reassuring in a democracy: Justice may be delayed but can never be denied.

Overall Analysis

This editorial strongly endorses the acquittal of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy case, framing the judgment as a victory not merely for individuals but for the principle of due process. From the outset, the language is assertive and morally charged. Words like “weaponised”, “witchhunt”, and “salience of due process” indicate that the editorial views the case as politically motivated and a misuse of investigative power.

The first paragraph situates the verdict within a broader political context. By recalling the origins of the Aam Aadmi Party in the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare, the piece underscores the reputational damage the allegations inflicted. The editorial also highlights the dramatic consequences of the case — including imprisonment of a sitting chief minister and its impact on electoral politics — suggesting that legal processes were intertwined with political strategy. The phrase “Not without due process” serves as a sharp, declarative reminder that legal standards cannot be bypassed.

In the second paragraph, the tone becomes more analytical and legalistic. The editorial examines the reasoning of the Special Court, focusing on its critique of the CBI’s methods — particularly reliance on approver statements and region-based labelling such as “South Group”. The court’s statement that criminal trials must concern actions, not identities, is presented as a constitutional principle. The language here emphasizes evidentiary standards: admissibility, corroboration, financial trail, threshold of proof. By quoting the court’s warning about “prolonged or indefinite incarceration”, the editorial reinforces its central theme — that due process protects citizens from the state’s excesses.

The final paragraph shifts to a broader democratic reflection. The acquittal is described as a “moment of vindication” for the accused and a “chastening moment” for investigative agencies. The closing line — that justice may be delayed but not denied — gives the piece a hopeful and reassuring tone, suggesting that institutional safeguards still function despite political pressures.

Overall, the editorial blends political critique with constitutional argument. It frames the verdict as a reaffirmation of judicial independence and the rule of law in a democracy where executive power is seen as increasingly dominant.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Vindicates – clears someone of blame or suspicion; proves right.
2. Salience – importance or prominence.
3. Constitutional infirmity – a weakness or flaw that violates constitutional principles.
4. Corroborated – supported or confirmed by additional evidence.
5. Chastening – causing someone to feel regret or a need to correct behaviour.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the court’s verdict restores faith in due process and judicial oversight, while implicitly criticising the government and investigative agencies for overreach. It presents the judgment as a democratic corrective against political misuse of power.

Tone: Critical, assertive, and constitutionally grounded, with an undertone of reassurance about judicial independence.