When our e-paper published the Special Edit titled “Verdict or Intermission?” on the very day a Delhi trial court acquitted Arvind Kejriwal and 23 others in the controversial Delhi excise policy case, some critics were quick to dismiss the questions raised in these columns. Political camps loyal to the Aam Aadmi Party and supporters of Kalvakuntla Kavitha rushed to declare the acquittal as proof of a grand “political witch hunt” allegedly orchestrated by the government of Narendra Modi. But events since then have vindicated the central argument of that editorial: the case was never closed. It was merely paused. The Delhi trial court’s judgment rested on a familiar and important legal principle — that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the court, the prosecution led by the Central Bureau of Investigation failed to establish a definitive money trail or prove a criminal conspiracy in the formulation and implementation of the 2021–22 excise policy. On that basis, the court acquitted Kejriwal, Kavitha, and 21 others. Legally speaking, the reasoning may sound impeccable. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, courts must insist on rigorous standards of evidence. No individual can be convicted merely because public perception demands it. Yet, the moment the verdict was pronounced, political celebrations erupted. Leaders and supporters of the accused projected the acquittal as a moral and political exoneration — proof that the investigation itself was malicious and politically driven. The familiar chorus followed: central agencies were acting as instruments of the government. That claim, frankly, does not withstand scrutiny. Over the past decade, the government led by Narendra Modi has repeatedly emphasised that investigative agencies must function without political interference.
Also read: https://orangenews9.com/verdict-or-intermission/
Whether critics agree or not, the record shows that agencies have investigated leaders across party lines. The allegation that every investigation against opposition figures is automatically a political vendetta is not only intellectually lazy but also an insult to the institutional autonomy of investigative bodies. More importantly, the judicial process itself does not end with a trial court verdict. This is precisely the point our Special Edit had raised. Indian judicial history is filled with examples where trial court judgments were later reversed by higher courts. The appellate structure exists because courts, like all human institutions, are not infallible. Significantly, during earlier proceedings in the case, the Supreme Court of India had observed — while considering bail petitions — that there appeared to be “prima facie” material suggesting that the allegations deserved deeper judicial scrutiny. Those observations were not a declaration of guilt, but they certainly indicated that the matter was far from frivolous. Now, with the CBI challenging the acquittal before the Delhi High Court, the story has entered a new phase. The High Court has reportedly found prima facie grounds to examine whether the trial court’s reasoning was flawed or incomplete. That development alone demonstrates why premature political victory laps were misplaced. The High Court will now reappreciate the evidence, revisit the prosecution’s arguments, and assess whether the conclusions reached by the trial court withstand closer legal scrutiny. That is how the judicial system is designed to function. In other words, the so-called “final verdict” may well turn out to be nothing more than an intermission. For those who rushed to brand the entire investigation as a conspiracy, the latest developments should serve as a reminder: justice in India unfolds through layers of judicial review, not through political slogans. Our Special Edit asked a simple question — Was the acquittal truly the end of the road, or merely a pause in a longer legal journey? With the Delhi High Court now stepping in, the answer appears clearer than ever. The curtain has not fallen. The second act has just begun.
