‘Political sensationalism’: CBI justifies Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest in excise policy case
The federal agency told SC that Kejriwal’s actions were not only illegal but also part of a larger conspiracy involving significant financial irregularities and misuse of public office.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has justified the arrest of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi excise policy case, accusing the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief of playing a “pivotal role” in the formulation and implementation of the controversial policy.

According to the agency, Kejriwal’s arrest was essential for the “just conclusion” of the investigation, particularly given Kejriwal’s non-cooperation and the substantial evidence pointing to his involvement.
Submitting a detailed affidavit in the Supreme Court on Thursday night in response to Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest, the agency contended that his actions were not only illegal but also part of a larger conspiracy involving significant financial irregularities and misuse of public office.
The CBI accused Kejriwal of attempting to politicise the case, arguing that he is trying to “politically sensationalise the case before this Hon’ble Court, despite repeated orders passed by various courts being prima facie satisfied of the commission of the offences”.
Asserting that Kejriwal’s arrest was lawful, with due procedure followed at every step, the CBI highlighted that the Delhi high court had already dismissed Kejriwal’s writ petition, concluding that “it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner (Kejriwal) was without any justifiable reasons or was illegal”.
A bench led by justice Surya Kant will take up Kejriwal’s petition challenging his arrest by the CBI later today. Hearing the matter on August 14, the top court had denied immediate interim bail to the Delhi CM even as it sought a response from the agency. The Delhi high court had on August 5 upheld Kejriwal’s June 26 arrest and remand by a trial court, ruling that his arrest was neither illegal nor without justifiable grounds because CBI presented “evidently enough evidence” to warrant his detention and remand.
Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court on August 12, two days after the top court granted bail to former Delhi deputy CM Manish Sisodia in the related probed by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In his petition before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal relied heavily on the Sisodia verdict, in which the top court held that the former deputy CM’s long incarceration of 17 months and his continued detention in a case where there was no hope of trial ending anytime soon impinged on his fundamental right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The AAP chief’s petition argued that the grounds on which the court found it appropriate to release Sisodia on bail should equally apply to him.
The crux of the CBI’s argument in its affidavit before the top court premised on Kejriwal’s alleged involvement in the formulation and execution of the Delhi excise policy 2021-22, which was later scrapped over allegations of irregularities and corruption, followed by a probe ordered by the Delhi lieutenant governor.
Although Kejriwal did not hold any official ministerial portfolio, the CBI contended that “all critical decisions in the formulation of the new excise policy were taken at the behest of the petitioner, in connivance with the then deputy chief minister and minister of excise, Manish Sisodia”.
According to the CBI, Kejriwal’s influence extended beyond the Delhi government, with his directives allegedly shaping decisions across the AAP’s national footprint. The agency claimed that Kejriwal was central to the policy’s privatisation plan, which included tweaking and manipulating the policy to benefit specific entities. One such manipulation, as alleged by the CBI, was the increase in profit margins for wholesalers from 5% to 12%, a change that purportedly resulted in a windfall gain for certain groups in exchange for illegal gratification of ₹100 crores from the “South Group” - a group of liquor business from the southern part of India.
It added that Kejriwal cannot claim parity with other accused in the case (Sisodia) owing to his key role in the criminal conspiracy and specifically the fact that all decisions of the Delhi government and the party were taken only as per his directions.
A significant portion of the affidavit was dedicated to tracing the financial transactions linked to the excise policy with the CBI alleging that ₹44.54 crore was funneled through hawala channels from Delhi to Goa to fund the AAP’s election campaign during the 2021-22 Goa assembly elections. These funds were reportedly received and distributed by individuals closely associated with the party, including Chanpreet Singh Rayat and Rajiv Ashok Mondkar, under the instructions of Vijay Nair, a key figure in AAP’s campaign strategy, according to the agency.
The affidavit also contended that data retrieved from the hard drives and mobile phones of the accused corroborated Kejriwal’s involvement. This included WhatsApp chats, screenshots and contact details linking Kejriwal to the financial transactions and policy decisions under scrutiny. The CBI stated that these documents indicate a direct connection between Kejriwal and the illicit activities, further implicating him in the case.
The CBI’s affidavit also highlighted Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation during the investigation, claiming that when Kejriwal was interrogated in Tihar Jail on June 25, 2024, he was “evasive and non-cooperative,” failing to provide satisfactory answers regarding his role in the ₹100-crore bribe allegedly paid to the AAP by the ‘South Group’. The CBI alleged that despite being confronted with incriminating evidence, Kejriwal provided contradictory statements and concealed critical information, which impeded the investigation.This behaviour, according to the CBI, justified Kejriwal’s arrest.
The affidavit further detailed that the decision to arrest him was not taken lightly and was only made after Kejriwal’s interrogation revealed his “pivotal role” in the conspiracy, coupled with his attempts to derail the investigation. The CBI underscored that Kejriwal’s influence, both as the Delhi CM and as the AAP national convener, posed a risk to the integrity of the investigation, with the potential for witness tampering and evidence destruction.
The CBI sought to dismantle Kejriwal’s claim that his arrest was unwarranted, arguing that all procedural requirements under the law, including those under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, were met. Stressing that there was sufficient compliance with the legal provisions, the agency stated that the necessity for Kejriwal’s arrest was thoroughly documented in the case diary, which was reviewed by both the special court and the Delhi high court.
Furthermore, the CBI pointed out that Kejriwal’s arrest was sanctioned by the relevant authorities under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, following a thorough investigation that pointed to his central role in the alleged crimes.
