Delhi HC lists Kejriwal, Sisodia excise case for July 16 hearing
Synopsis
After months of procedural deadlock — including a bench reassignment, contempt proceedings, and an AAP boycott — the Delhi excise policy case is finally back on track. With Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak now formally represented, the Delhi High Court will hear the CBI's challenge to their discharge on July 16, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal reckoning.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court adjourned the CBI 's challenge to the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal , Manish Sisodia , and others to July 16 .
Vakalatnamas have now been filed on behalf of Kejriwal , Sisodia , and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak , ending their earlier abstention from proceedings.
The case was reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain after criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against several AAP leaders over allegedly defamatory material targeting the judiciary.
The trial court had discharged all accused on 27 February in a judgment of more than 1,100 paragraphs , finding no overarching conspiracy.
The CBI alleges the excise policy was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
The Delhi High Court on Monday adjourned till July 16 the hearing on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the discharge of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) National Convenor and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and others in the alleged Delhi excise policy corruption case. The court took on record that legal representation papers — vakalatnamas — have now been filed on behalf of all three key respondents.
Key Developments in Monday's Hearing
A single-judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain noted that vakalatnamas had been filed on behalf of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and AAP leader Durgesh Pathak — all of whom had previously abstained from participating when the matter was being heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. With formal representation now in place, Justice Jain said the court would hear all parties on July 16 and draw up a schedule for the proceedings.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre's second-highest law officer, submitted that the CBI had already filed an affidavit of service on Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak. He further contended that the respondents had earlier appeared in the matter and had even moved recusal pleas, which were rejected.
Why the Case Was Reassigned
The matter came before Justice Jain after being reassigned from the Bench of Justice Sharma, following the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against several AAP leaders — including Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh — over the alleged circulation of material described as 'vilifying and defamatory' targeting the judiciary in connection with the excise policy case.
The AAP leaders had chosen to abstain from proceedings after Justice Sharma declined to recuse herself from the case. Last week, Justice Jain had issued fresh notices to Kejriwal, Sisodia, and Pathak, noting that several respondents had failed to appear or file replies despite repeated opportunities.
What the Trial Court Had Ruled
The trial court, in a judgment spanning more than 1,100 paragraphs delivered on 27 February, discharged all accused persons in the CBI's corruption case. The court held that the now-scrapped excise policy was the outcome of a consultative and deliberative process, and that the prosecution had failed to establish any overarching conspiracy.
The CBI, in its revision plea before the Delhi High Court, has alleged that the excise policy introduced by the then AAP-led Delhi government was manipulated to favour select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks. Solicitor General Mehta has previously urged the court to take up the matter expeditiously, arguing that the trial court's discharge order 'cannot stand scrutiny of law' and involves serious allegations.
What Happens Next
With all parties now formally represented, the Delhi High Court is set to hear the matter substantively on July 16 and is expected to lay out a hearing schedule. The outcome of the CBI's challenge could have significant implications for Kejriwal and Sisodia, who were discharged by the trial court after a prolonged legal battle that included periods of custody for both leaders.
Point of View
But the substance of the CBI's challenge remains formidable — and politically charged. The trial court's 1,100-paragraph discharge order was unusually detailed, suggesting a judge who anticipated appellate scrutiny. The real question is whether the High Court finds a reviewable legal error or simply affirms the lower court's reading of evidence. For Kejriwal and Sisodia, who have already served time in custody, a reversal at this stage would reopen a chapter they have politically tried to close. The contempt angle — rarely invoked against sitting or former elected officials — adds a layer of institutional tension that the July 16 hearing will need to navigate carefully.
NationPress
10 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the Delhi excise policy case been listed for July 16?
The Delhi High Court adjourned the hearing to July 16 after vakalatnamas were filed on behalf of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and Durgesh Pathak, signalling their formal participation. Justice Manoj Jain said the court would hear all parties and draw up a schedule on that date.
What is the CBI challenging in the Delhi High Court?
The CBI has filed a revision plea challenging the trial court's February 27 order that discharged all accused — including Kejriwal and Sisodia — in the Delhi excise policy corruption case. The CBI alleges the policy was manipulated to benefit select liquor traders in exchange for kickbacks.
Why did Kejriwal and Sisodia previously abstain from the proceedings?
The AAP leaders abstained after Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined to recuse herself from the case. They had moved recusal pleas, which were rejected. The case was subsequently reassigned to Justice Manoj Jain following the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against several AAP leaders.
What did the trial court rule in the excise policy case?
The trial court, in a judgment of more than 1,100 paragraphs delivered on 27 February, discharged all accused, holding that the now-scrapped excise policy was the result of a consultative process and that the prosecution had failed to prove any overarching conspiracy.
Who is Durgesh Pathak and why is he named in the case?
Durgesh Pathak is an AAP leader who is among the respondents in the CBI's revision plea before the Delhi High Court. Like Kejriwal and Sisodia, he had earlier abstained from proceedings but has now filed a vakalatnama, formally entering his appearance.
