Kejriwal trajectory becomes case study in debate over India’s investigative neutrality
Islamabad: The trajectory of Arvind Kejriwal, founder of the Aam Aadmi Party and three-time Chief Minister of Delhi, has become a case study in the debate over India’s investigative neutrality.
Arvind Kejriwal, who comes from the Baniya or Vaishya community, traditionally ranked below Brahmins in the Hindu varna order, was arrested in 2024 by the Indian Enforcement Directorate and later by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Delhi Excise Policy case.
It was a sitting Chief Minister who was taken into custody in such circumstances and he spent about 156 days in New Delhi’s Tihar Jail before receiving bail from the Supreme Court, which underscored concerns about personal liberty. An innocent was labelled falsely as corrupt by an Indian investigative agency on behalf of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
On February 27, 2026, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court discharged him and others in the main CBI corruption case, citing clear lacunae and lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy.
Earlier in January 2026, he had been acquitted in related ED summons matters. During his three terms as Chief Minister he was not convicted in any major case and secured relief in several defamation proceedings as well.
For his party, these outcomes reinforce the allegation that central agencies were deployed as political instruments by the BJP to weaken opposition leadership, contributing to AAP’s electoral setbacks in 2025.
Leaders such as M K Stalin and Bhagwant Mann publicly echoed claims of fabricated cases. Critics more broadly argue that minorities and socially lower groups often face disproportionate scrutiny from policing institutions.
From a non-partisan institutional perspective, the judiciary’s repeated interventions demonstrate that corrective mechanisms remain active against minorities, especially Muslims and lower caste member people.
One can see that in Indian history, most of the cases are politically motivated against minorities, especially Muslims and lower caste people, investigative lapses and restored liberty where evidence failed.
At the same time, recurring allegations of agency overreach sustain concerns about independence and equal application of law across political, caste and community lines. KMS—15A
