In a dramatic turn in the Delhi excise policy case, a special court in the national capital on Friday directed that a departmental inquiry be initiated against a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officer who led the probe in the matter. The order came shortly after the court discharged all 23 accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court strongly criticized the conduct of the investigating officer, particularly for naming senior excise official Kuldeep Singh as the primary accused despite what the court described as a complete absence of supporting material.

“I am recommending a departmental inquiry with respect to framing A1 as an accused. There is no material at all. I am repeating, there is no material at all,” the judge stated during proceedings, making it clear that the decision to list Singh as accused number one was unjustified.

In a detailed order, the court observed that the investigation appeared “pre-meditated and choreographed,” suggesting that the allegations were shaped to fit a predetermined narrative rather than emerging from objective evidence. The judge said such an approach undermines the principle of fair and impartial investigation.

The court also flagged what it termed a “self-contradictory stance” in the chargesheet. It noted that certain individuals were shown as suspects while simultaneously being cited as prosecution witnesses. Among them were senior excise officials Arva Gopi Krishna and Anand Kumar Tewari. The court pointed out that Krishna was listed as a suspect but also cited as prosecution witness number 74, raising serious questions about consistency.

According to the court, this dual positioning reflected a calculated strategy that allowed the investigating agency to rely on statements when convenient, while keeping open the possibility of implicating the same individuals if the case weakened. The judge remarked that such conduct revealed awareness of the fragility of the allegations.

Calling the approach “anticipatory manipulation,” the court emphasized that investigations must be rooted in clarity and principle, not ambiguity designed to preserve prosecutorial options. It concluded that recommending departmental proceedings was necessary to ensure accountability and protect the credibility of investigative institutions.