Delhi High Court has ruled there is no prima-facie case against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the alleged excise scam, dismissing the prosecution’s claims of policy manipulation. The court emphasized that the prosecution’s case rests on an uncorroborated statement from a witness and lacks any direct evidence linking Kejriwal to the alleged conspiracy.

Lack of Direct Evidence

In its detailed ruling, the court highlighted that there was no relevant document, file noting, electronic communication, financial transaction, or digital evidence to directly or indirectly connect Kejriwal with any alleged policy manipulation or illegal gratification. The judge pointed out that the prosecution’s case hinges on an uncorroborated statement from a witness, which cannot serve as a legal basis for proceeding against the chief minister.

The court noted that the prosecution’s argument is based on the premise that the policy was manipulated pursuant to a criminal design. However, without establishing that foundation, the subsequent allegations of a larger conspiracy lose their footing. The judge emphasized that the mere invocation of the term ‘conspiracy’ does not dispense with the requirement of material indicating agreement and participation.

Issues with Witness Testimonies

The court flagged a ‘serious infirmity’ regarding the evidentiary value of certain witnesses. It stated that individuals who admitted to participating in the alleged transaction were examined merely as prosecution witnesses, without being arraigned as accused or tendered pardon as approvers. The judge questioned whether the agencies were aware of the settled legal position but sought to present these witnesses as independent to strengthen their case.

The court noted that the liability for the conspiracy cannot be inferred in isolation and instead arises from circumstances that are proximate, consistent, and mutually reinforcing. In the absence of such connecting material, a solitary statement of the nature relied upon cannot, by itself, meet the legal threshold required to proceed further.

When evaluating the statement of prosecution witness 225 Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy, the court found it to be a self-incriminating, participant account akin to that of an approver. However, without independent corroboration, it concluded that such an uncorroborated statement was not a legally sustainable basis to proceed against Kejriwal.

Policy Development Process

The court further stated that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima-facie case of manipulation of the policy. There was no evidence to suggest any prior agreement or meeting of minds indicative of a criminal conspiracy in the formulation of the policy. The clauses incorporated in the policy cannot be traced to any document allegedly supplied by the so-called South Group.

The court noted that the record reflects deliberations at various levels, examination by the competent authorities, and a progressive development of the policy framework, culminating in approval by the Lieutenant Governor. This process, according to the court, indicates a structured and legitimate policy-making approach rather than a criminal conspiracy.

Regarding the allegations that Kejriwal used the funds for the Goa election, the court said that if the foundational allegation of policy manipulation in furtherance of a criminal design does not prima facie withstand scrutiny, then the subsequent allegation automatically loses its footing.

The court also highlighted the serious consequences of prosecuting a person holding a constitutional office. It stated that arrest and prosecution in such circumstances have implications beyond the individual, affecting public confidence in institutions. If it is later found that such prosecution was unsupported by admissible material, the erosion of public trust is substantial.

The judge emphasized that the power to investigate and prosecute carries with it a corresponding obligation of fairness, restraint, and adherence to the rule of evidence. Only by strict observance of these principles can both individual liberty and public faith in the justice system be preserved.