Hubballi (Karnataka), Feb 27 (UNI) “Voters punished the AAP over perception, not proof,” Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said on Friday after the discharge of Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi excise policy case.
Welcoming the court’s decision, Abdullah argued that the allegations had shaped public opinion and adversely impacted the electoral prospects of the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi.
“The voters of Delhi, to a very large extent, punished the Aam Aadmi Party because of the perception that was created around Kejriwal and Sisodia,” he told reporters, congratulating both leaders for maintaining that the case was politically motivated.
The controversy traces back to the Delhi government’s Excise Policy 2021–22, which sought to privatise retail liquor sales in the national capital. Following a report flagging alleged procedural lapses, the Lieutenant Governor recommended a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The policy was subsequently withdrawn.
The CBI registered an FIR alleging irregularities and undue benefits to certain licensees, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated a parallel money-laundering investigation. Sisodia, who handled the excise portfolio, was arrested in February 2023, and Kejriwal was arrested in March 2024. Both denied wrongdoing and termed the investigations politically driven.
On Friday a special court in Delhi discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and others, holding that the investigating agency had failed to establish a prima facie case or substantiate allegations of criminal conspiracy, according to media reports.
Abdullah said the discharge underscored the need to uphold the principle of presumption of innocence.
“There has to be a presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, more often than not, we are now inclined to presume guilt,” he said.
He cautioned against what he described as a growing tendency to treat allegations as proof, particularly in political cases.
“You automatically assume that all politicians who have allegations against them are guilty and that they must prove their innocence. Whereas the reverse is true: you have to presume innocence, and the agencies must prove guilt, which in this case, they were not able to do,” Abdullah added.
