'Suspicion Can't Replace Proof': Delhi Court Closes Corruption Case Against Satyendar Jain Over 2019 PWD Recruitment
A Delhi court closed the corruption case against AAP leader Satyendar Jain after the CBI cited insufficient evidence. The case, stemming from alleged irregularities in hiring consultants for the PWD in 2019.
A Delhi court has brought the corruption case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain to a close, following the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) submission of a closure report citing lack of evidence. Special Judge (PC Act) Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts accepted the CBI’s report and observed that after an investigation spanning four years, no proof of wrongdoing had been uncovered.
According to Bar and Bench, the judge remarked, “There is no material whatsoever even to suggest a criminal conspiracy.”
“Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof”: Court Notes Lack of Material
While ruling on the matter, the court said the allegations and the context presented were not substantial enough to justify further inquiry or initiate legal proceedings. Emphasising the legal standard, the court observed, “The law clearly states that suspicion cannot replace proof. It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed.”
FIR Stemmed from Alleged Irregularities in Hiring Consultants
The case originated from a complaint by the vigilance department, which led to an FIR being registered in May 2019. Jain, then serving as Delhi’s Public Works Department (PWD) minister, was accused of irregularities in outsourcing the hiring of a 17-member consultant team for the department—allegedly bypassing standard government recruitment protocols.
According to the CBI’s investigation, the engagement of consultants was driven by pressing departmental needs and the process followed was both transparent and competitive. The agency concluded that there was no evidence pointing to corruption, criminal conspiracy, undue advantage or personal benefit.
Accepting the CBI’s findings, the court formally closed the case. However, it added that the agency would be free to reopen the investigation if any fresh evidence surfaces in the future.
The case, titled CBI v Satyendar Jain & Ors, now stands disposed of after the court’s acceptance of the closure report.
Top Headlines
