A Delhi court on Friday sharply criticized the investigation conducted in the controversial liquor policy case, describing parts of it as economically illogical and lacking solid supporting evidence. In its order, the court discharged all 23 accused, including the former Chief Minister of Delhi and his deputy. The judge observed that much of the prosecution’s case appeared to be based more on assumptions than on clearly established facts.
The matter relates to a 2022 excise policy that was introduced to reform the process of granting liquor licences in the national capital. Investigators had alleged that the policy was designed in a way that favoured certain private entities and resulted in financial irregularities. These allegations led to high profile arrests and extended legal proceedings that attracted nationwide attention.
However, while examining the charges, the court questioned whether investigators were able to demonstrate any direct personal benefit gained by the accused. The judge also noted that there was insufficient material to prove any concrete financial loss to the government. According to the order, arguments presented by the prosecution did not convincingly establish criminal intent or wrongdoing.
Lawyers representing the accused argued that the allegations were speculative from the beginning. They maintained that policy decisions, even if debated, do not automatically translate into criminal offences unless supported by strong evidence. The court appeared to agree with this reasoning in its findings.
The decision has sparked political debate, with supporters of the accused calling the ruling a validation of their stand. At the same time, investigators have indicated that they plan to challenge the order before a higher court. This means the legal process is likely to continue in the coming months.
Beyond the political noise, the ruling has raised broader concerns about the standards required in complex financial investigations. Courts often insist on clear documentation, traceable financial trails and demonstrable intent. Without such proof, large cases can collapse under scrutiny.
As the case potentially moves to appellate courts, attention will remain focused on whether additional material can strengthen the prosecution’s arguments or whether the discharge will ultimately stand.
