‘Economically Illiterate’: Court Pulls Up CBI in Delhi Liquor Policy Case

In a scathing order, a Delhi court sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its handling of the high-profile excise policy case, terming aspects of the probe “economically illiterate” and riddled with inconsistencies. The court discharged all accused in the matter, dealing a significant blow to the agency’s case surrounding the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy.

The judge observed that the prosecution’s theory lacked a sound understanding of basic economic principles and failed to establish a coherent link between policy decisions and alleged criminal intent. The court said the chargesheet appeared to rely heavily on assumptions and conjecture rather than verifiable evidence, raising serious questions about the foundation of the case.

According to the order, the investigative agency did not adequately substantiate its claims of irregularities in the formulation and implementation of the excise policy. The court noted that policy decisions, by their very nature, may involve financial and administrative considerations that cannot automatically be construed as criminal misconduct without clear proof of wrongdoing.

The judgment also highlighted contradictions within the chargesheet and pointed to gaps in the evidentiary chain. It remarked that certain classifications and narratives constructed by investigators lacked statutory backing and appeared speculative. Such deficiencies, the court said, fell short of the threshold required to proceed with criminal prosecution.

Further, the court expressed concern over the impact of the investigation on public officials and other accused persons, emphasising that criminal law cannot be invoked on tenuous grounds. It underscored the need for investigative agencies to exercise due diligence and maintain objectivity, particularly in matters involving complex economic policies. The CBI is expected to challenge the order before a higher court. The ruling has reignited debate over the scope of investigative scrutiny in policy decisions and the standards of evidence required in cases involving alleged financial impropriety. As the legal battle moves to the next stage, the judgment stands as a stern reminder of judicial oversight in high-stakes investigations.