Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia have been acquitted by Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court in the liquor scam case. Congress’s first reaction has come to light on this. Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that in a democracy, allegations cannot be a substitute for evidence.
The discharge of @ArvindKejriwal and @msisodia by th Court is a telling reminder that in a democracy, allegations cannot substitute evidence. Institutions must act with fairness, not fervour. Rule of law must prevail over rule by insinuation.
— Abhishek Singhvi (@DrAMSinghvi) February 27, 2026
What has the court said in its decision?
The court has said in its decision that there is no evidence against both of them. The allegation is not proved. CBI tried to hatch a conspiracy. His theory was speculation rather than solid evidence. In this case, CBI had filed a charge sheet against 23 people. Special Judge Jitendra Singh refused to frame any charges and acquitted everyone in this case. After being acquitted by the court, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal appeared emotional in front of the media. He said that I have earned only honesty in life. They have filed a false case. Today this has been proved. Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and AAP party are staunchly honest.
Recommendation for investigation against CBI officer
In the Delhi Liquor Policy case, Rouse Avenue Court has written in the copy of its decision recommending investigation against the investigating officer of CBI. The court has said that if the investigation is not found correct, then the responsibility of the court is not only to reject such material but also to recommend departmental action against the concerned investigating officer.
The court made it clear that accusing a person without concrete evidence harms the credibility of the investigation system. According to the Court’s decision, leaving investigative irregularities without consequences undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system and is contrary to the principle of the rule of law. In this context, a previous decision of the Supreme Court has also been cited.
