After being discharged by the court in the Delhi excise policy case, Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, described the verdict as a significant moment in Indian politics. He accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of orchestrating a conspiracy using central agencies such as the ED and CBI to retain power. Sisodia noted that the Supreme Court of India had earlier observed that the case would not stand trial, a view he said was reaffirmed by the trial court. He also mentioned that an inquiry has been initiated against a CBI officer and urged the BJP to admit that the allegations were false.

Delhi Leader of Opposition Atishi defended Arvind Kejriwal and Sisodia, calling them “kattar imaandar” and asserting that the case proved how central agencies conspired against the Aam Aadmi Party. She said the truth about the Prime Minister and the BJP had now been exposed. AAP MP Sanjay Singh echoed similar sentiments, stating that the court’s ruling demonstrated that the cases were fabricated as part of a conspiracy to tarnish the reputations of Kejriwal, Sisodia, and the party.

The Rouse Avenue Court discharged Kejriwal and Sisodia, observing that the alleged central conspiracy could not be substantiated. The court said the accusations did not withstand judicial scrutiny, found no criminal intent on Sisodia’s part, and held that the conspiracy theory could not stand against a constitutional authority. Reacting to the verdict, Sunita Kejriwal expressed happiness and stated that truth ultimately prevails.

The CBI had filed its first chargesheet in 2022 and later submitted supplementary chargesheets, alleging that ₹100 crore was paid by a “south lobby” to influence the now-withdrawn excise policy. A total of 23 individuals were chargesheeted in the case. The CBI maintained that the alleged criminal conspiracy should be assessed as a whole and that the adequacy of evidence should be examined during trial. However, Kejriwal’s counsel argued that there was no incriminating material linking him to the conspiracy. The defence pointed out that his name appeared only in the fourth supplementary chargesheet and not in the earlier ones, contending that the allegations merely repeated previous claims and that he was acting within his official capacity as Chief Minister.