Delhi Excise Policy Case: Timeline, Allegations and the 2026 Court Battle

The High Court rejects Vijay Nair’s plea to recall a May order High Court procedure

Vijay Nair, a former AAP communications in-charge, asked the court to recall its 8 May 2026 order in the CBI’s challenge to the discharge. That order had recorded that Nair’s and another respondent’s applications on maintainability would be heard with the main petition, with respondents’ counsel having no objection. Nair said no such consent was given. Justice Sharma rejected the plea: the judicial record “cannot be displaced” by a later contrary assertion, no objection was raised when the order was dictated in court, and five months passed without any application to the roster bench (Bar and Bench).

Justice Sharma no longer hears the main case; the application reached Justice Sharma only because the May order was Justice Sharma’s. This was a ruling about the court record, not about whether the excise policy allegations are true.

Arguments on the CBI’s challenge were scheduled to begin High Court procedure

On 17 August the High Court set 5 and 6 October for the CBI to open its arguments on the revision petition, with no further adjournments (LawChakra). AiTimeline could not find a published report of what happened at those hearings, whether arguments were heard, adjourned or reserved, so it does not state an outcome here. The High Court has not, in any report found, decided the CBI’s challenge.

The contempt bench lists the case against AAP leaders for 16 November High Court procedure

In the criminal contempt case opened on 14 May, Kejriwal’s senior counsel said the full material behind the case had not yet been supplied. The bench directed the registry to supply the material, described as incomplete, allowed replies within four weeks and listed the case for 16 November 2026. A separate contempt petition by lawyer Ashok Chaitanya against Kejriwal and others was listed the same day (ThePrint, PTI).

No finding of contempt has been made against anyone. The contempt case concerns social-media posts about a judge, not the excise allegations.

Four weeks to reply, a comprehensive hearing and no more adjournments High Court procedure

The court gave the respondents four weeks to answer the CBI’s written submissions, ordered the revision to be heard comprehensively with the connected petitions, and said the interim order would continue. Senior advocate N. Hariharan, for Kejriwal, objected to 103 pages of CBI submissions filed the day before, saying they raised grounds not in the petition. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, with ASG S.V. Raju, called the maintainability objections frivolous (LawChakra; ANI).

The defence argues the investigating officer was not competent to file the revision and that there was no supporting vakalatnama; it also says the CBI filed the revision about four hours after the trial court’s order and has not identified a specific perverse finding (The Tribune). The CBI says the trial court held a mini-trial at the charge stage. Justice Jain declined to treat maintainability as a “precondition”. On 13 August Kejriwal and Sisodia had formally asked for the revision to be dismissed as not maintainable (ANI), and the CBI told the court the accused were using “childish” ways to delay the case (Bar and Bench). These are arguments by each side, not findings.

A last chance for the accused to file replies High Court procedure

The court gave Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak “one last and final opportunity” to file replies to the CBI’s petition within two weeks, asked the parties for written submissions and listed the CBI’s arguments for 17 and 18 August (ETV Bharat).

Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak agree to appear before Justice Manoj Jain High Court procedure

After the change of bench the three, who had stopped taking part in proceedings before Justice Sharma, filed vakalatnamas and said they would participate before Justice Jain (ANI). Lawyers were abstaining from work that day, so the court adjourned the CBI’s revision, with the ED’s connected plea, to 16 July (LiveLaw).

A Division Bench issues notice in the contempt case High Court procedure

The bench issued notice to the alleged contemnors on the basis of the 14 May order, gave them four weeks to reply and listed the case for 4 August (LawBeat). Senior advocate Rajdipa Behura was later appointed amicus curiae to assist the court (India Legal).

Justice Sharma steps away and starts criminal contempt proceedings High Court procedure

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the judge would no longer hear the CBI’s challenge and, in the same order, initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh, Vinay Mishra and Saurabh Bharadwaj over social-media posts Justice Sharma described as defamatory and vilifying in connection with the case, including an allegedly edited video of a speech by the judge (Bar and Bench; LiveLaw; India TV). The judge said the step was “not recusal” but judicial discipline, because a judge who initiates contempt should not keep hearing the same parties’ case, and sent the revision to another bench subject to the Chief Justice’s orders (The Federal). Kejriwal welcomed the outcome.

The contempt matter concerns the posts, not the excise allegations. It was listed before a Division Bench; no one has been found in contempt.

Three accused stop taking part, and the court looks for amici curiae High Court procedure

On 27 April Kejriwal, Sisodia and Durgesh Pathak wrote to the judge that they would not appear before the bench in person or through counsel (The Federal). Kejriwal wrote that the “hope of getting justice” was “shattered”; Sisodia said the decision reflected personal conviction, not disrespect for the judiciary. On 8 May the court adjourned the CBI’s petition while it waited for senior advocates to agree to act as amici curiae for the three, and the Solicitor General said maintainability would be addressed in the CBI’s arguments (Social News XYZ, IANS). The same day’s order recorded that other respondents’ maintainability applications would be heard with the main petition, the order Vijay Nair later asked to recall.

Justice Sharma refuses to recuse High Court procedure

Kejriwal and five other accused had sought recusal in late March, citing the 9 March stay of the trial court’s remarks, briefs given to the judge’s children from the central government’s panel, and the judge’s attendance at events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad, a lawyers’ body. The court rejected all three grounds, holding that bias must be shown by proof rather than perception and that recusing on these grounds would invite bench-hunting (Bar and Bench; ThePrint; The Federal).

Kejriwal and Sisodia seek a different judge, first from the Chief Justice and then the Supreme Court High Court procedure

Kejriwal and Sisodia asked the Delhi High Court Chief Justice to move the case from Justice Sharma, citing remarks Justice Sharma had made while hearing other accused’s bail pleas. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya declined on 13 March because the matter fell under the roster. Kejriwal then filed a special leave petition against the 9 March order and a writ petition against the Chief Justice’s decision (The Tribune; India TV; ANI). According to The Federal, both were “filed and abandoned without being pressed to a hearing” (The Federal); AiTimeline found no Supreme Court ruling on either.

The ED asks the High Court to delete the trial court’s remarks about it High Court procedure

The ED, which was not a party to the CBI case, asked for several paragraphs of the 27 February order to be removed as “extraneous to the subject matter”, saying they would prejudice its money-laundering investigation and that it had not been heard. The court issued notice, refused an immediate interim order and directed the plea to be heard with the CBI’s revision (Social News XYZ, IANS). It has since been listed with the CBI’s petition before Justice Jain (LiveLaw).

The High Court issues notice and stays remarks against the CBI officer High Court procedure

On the CBI’s revision petition the court noted “certain factual discrepancies” in the discharge order about witness and approver statements and said those observations appeared prima facie erroneous and needed examination. It found the trial court’s remarks against the investigating officer, including a finding of abuse of position and an unfair investigation, prima facie “foundationally misconceived”, and stayed them, with the recommended departmental action, until the next date (SCC Online).

The CBI argued the discharge could affect the ED’s money-laundering proceedings, since the CBI case is the predicate offence. The court asked the trial court hearing the PMLA case to adjourn it to a date after the next High Court hearing. This was an interim step; the order was not a ruling that the charges should be restored.

A Rouse Avenue court discharges all 23 accused in the CBI case Court ruling on charges

The court discharged Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K. Kavitha and 20 others, holding that the material did not disclose even a prima facie case, that the CBI’s theory of an overarching conspiracy rested on conjecture, and that the policy had emerged from consultation at several levels. It was sharply critical of the investigation and recommended departmental action against the investigating officer (SCC Online; Morung Express; Newslaundry). It had reserved its order on charges on 12 February (LawChakra).

The CBI said it would challenge the order and filed a revision petition in the High Court (News On AIR); the defence says that was within hours. A discharge means the court found no sufficient ground to frame charges at that stage. It is not an acquittal after trial, and it applied to the CBI case only.

A court dismisses the ED’s complaints against Kejriwal over skipped summons Court ruling on charges

The ED had filed two complaints alleging that Kejriwal ignored five summonses in the money-laundering probe. The court dismissed them, holding that the ED had not established grounds to proceed under section 50 of the PMLA (LawBeat). In late March 2026 the ED moved the Delhi High Court against that ruling (NewsGram).

These complaints were only about non-compliance with summonses. The ruling did not decide the money-laundering allegations themselves.

The CAG report on the policy is tabled in the Delhi Assembly Politics

The new BJP government tabled a CAG performance audit that put the financial impact of its findings at about ₹2,026.91 crore, including alleged rule violations in licence awards, a lack of transparency in pricing and a ₹144 crore licence-fee waiver (The Statesman; Business Today). Atishi, then leader of the opposition, said seven of the eight chapters criticised the old policy and only one the new one (ETV Bharat).

An audit finding of loss or irregularity is not a criminal finding, and the trial court’s 2026 discharge did not decide it.

AAP loses power in Delhi Politics

The excise case was a central issue in the Delhi Assembly election in February 2025, which the BJP won, ending AAP’s time in government (The Statesman). AAP called the case politically motivated; BJP leaders said it exposed corruption (DT Next). Neither claim is a court finding.

The Supreme Court grants Kejriwal bail in the CBI case Arrests, custody and bail

The bench granted bail on a ₹10 lakh bond with two sureties, with conditions that included staying away from the Chief Minister’s office and Delhi Secretariat (The Tribune). The judges split on the arrest: Justice Kant upheld the CBI’s 26 June arrest, while Justice Bhuyan said it appeared aimed at frustrating Kejriwal’s bail in the ED case (Morung Express; Moneylife). Kejriwal had been on interim bail in the ED case since 12 July and resigned as chief minister four days later.

Bail concerns custody during the case. It is not a finding on the allegations.

The Supreme Court grants Vijay Nair bail in the ED case Arrests, custody and bail

The court granted bail to Vijay Nair in the PMLA case after almost two years in custody (SCC Online).

The Supreme Court grants K. Kavitha bail Arrests, custody and bail

Kavitha, who had been arrested by the ED on 15 March 2024 and the CBI in April, was granted bail in both cases (The Tribune).

The Supreme Court grants Sisodia bail after about 17 months Arrests, custody and bail

Setting aside the High Court’s refusal, the court granted bail in both the CBI and ED cases because of the “long incarceration” of about 17 months and because the trial had not begun, which it said deprived Sisodia of the right to a speedy trial (Business Today; ETV Bharat).

The bail order did not decide guilt either way.

Interim bail, trial-court bail and a CBI arrest while Kejriwal is in custody Arrests, custody and bail

The Supreme Court gave Kejriwal interim bail on 10 May to campaign in the Lok Sabha election, and Kejriwal returned to custody after 1 June. A trial court granted regular bail in the ED case on 20 June; the High Court intervened and the CBI arrested Kejriwal in the corruption case on 26 June (LawChakra). In September the Supreme Court split on whether that arrest was justified.

The ED arrests Arvind Kejriwal Arrests, custody and bail

After repeated summonses from October 2023, the ED arrested the sitting chief minister in its money-laundering case on 21 March 2024, the day the Delhi High Court denied Kejriwal protection from coercive action (LawChakra). Kejriwal and AAP denied wrongdoing and called the case political.

The ED arrests K. Kavitha Arrests, custody and bail

Kavitha, a Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader and daughter of former Telangana chief minister K. Chandrashekar Rao, was arrested by the ED. The agency alleged links to a group it called the “South Group” and to the alleged kickbacks. Kavitha denied the allegations and was discharged in the CBI case in February 2026.

The CBI arrests Manish Sisodia Arrests, custody and bail

The CBI arrested the deputy chief minister, who held the excise portfolio, and alleged that policy changes and licensing decisions favoured selected businesses for kickbacks. Sisodia denied the allegations and resigned from the government on 28 February 2023. The ED arrested Sisodia in the money-laundering case on 9 March (ETV Bharat).

The ED arrests Vijay Nair and Abhishek Boinpally Arrests, custody and bail

The ED arrested Nair and Hyderabad businessman Abhishek Boinpally after the CBI had already arrested them (The News Minute). The CBI had arrested Nair on Tuesday 27 September 2022, saying Nair was not cooperating; AAP said Nair was arrested for refusing to name Sisodia.

The CBI and the ED file their first charge sheets Investigation

The CBI filed its first charge sheet on 25 November against arrested businessmen Vijay Nair and Abhishek Boinpally and five others for criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It did not name Sisodia, though Sisodia was in the FIR, and said the probe into others continued (Outlook Business; The Tribune). The ED filed its first prosecution complaint under the PMLA at about the same time, reportedly against Sameer Mahendru and entities, as the 60-day deadline after the arrest ran out.

A charge sheet is the agency’s account of its case. It is not proof, and the ED’s case rests on a different law with a different legal test.

The CBI registers an FIR and searches Sisodia’s home Investigation

The CBI registered a case naming 15 people, with Sisodia among them (The Tribune), and carried out searches on 19 August, including at Sisodia’s residence (The Week). The FIR said decisions on the policy were taken without the approval of the competent authority to extend undue favours to licensees. Sisodia and AAP denied it.

Delhi returns to its previous excise framework The policy and audits

As the controversy grew, the government announced it would revert to the earlier excise regime, withdrawing the 2021–22 policy. A formal withdrawal is also reported for September 2022 (LawChakra). This ended the experiment but did not resolve how the policy had been formed.

The Lieutenant Governor recommends a CBI inquiry Investigation

Acting on the chief secretary’s report, the Lieutenant Governor recommended a CBI inquiry (The Week). The Delhi government and AAP disputed the allegations.

The chief secretary reports alleged irregularities Investigation

Naresh Kumar sent the Lieutenant Governor a report on alleged procedural lapses in the policy’s formulation and implementation, accusing Sisodia of giving undue benefits to licensees for “kickbacks” and “commissions” (The Week). The report was an allegation by an official, not a court finding.

The 2021–22 excise policy takes effect The policy and audits

Announced by Sisodia in March 2021, the policy closed government-run liquor vends and allowed only private operators to run retail from November (The Week). Supporters said it would modernise the trade and raise revenue; critics questioned the licensing terms and safeguards against favouritism.