DELHI COURT CRITICISES CBI FOR REPEATED USE OF ‘SOUTH GROUP’ LABEL IN LIQUOR POLICY CASE, CALLS REGIONAL TAGGING ARBITRARY:

A Delhi court sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation for repeatedly using the expression “South Group” while prosecuting the alleged liquor policy corruption case, holding that such region-based labelling is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and constitutionally inappropriate. The observations were made by Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts while dismantling the CBI’s chargesheet and discharging all 23 accused persons in the case, including political figures Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and K. Kavitha.

The Court expressed serious concern over the deliberate and recurring use of the term “South Group” by the Central Bureau of Investigation to describe a particular set of accused persons, purportedly based on their regional origin or place of residence. According to the Court, this form of nomenclature has no foundation in criminal law, does not correspond to any legally cognisable classification, and is entirely alien to the statutory framework governing criminal liability. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to adopt any similar regional descriptor for other accused persons, pointing out that the narrative did not refer to any “North Group” or comparable categorisation, thereby highlighting the selective and inconsistent nature of the labelling.

The Court went beyond treating the issue as one of mere semantics and emphasised that region-based descriptors carry an avoidable undertone capable of creating prejudice. It observed that such language risks shaping perception in a manner that detracts from the core requirement of criminal adjudication namely, that proceedings must remain dispassionate, evidence-centric, and insulated from extraneous considerations. In a constitutional framework founded on equality before law and the unity and integrity of the nation, the Court held that references rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose and are manifestly inappropriate.

Further, the Court cautioned that the continued use of such terminology, despite the absence of any legally sustainable basis, carries a real danger of colouring judicial and public perception, causing unintended prejudice, and diverting attention away from the evidentiary material, which alone must guide adjudication. It underscored that identity-based labelling whether grounded in region, ethnicity, or nationality cannot be employed as a prosecutorial shorthand when such identity has no nexus with the alleged offence. The Court characterised this practice not as a minor irregularity in expression, but as a constitutional infirmity capable of undermining the fairness of the proceedings themselves, reiterating that criminal liability must rest solely on conduct proved by evidence rather than on who the accused is or where the accused comes from.

In this backdrop, the Court advised the investigating agency to exercise far greater care, circumspection, and restraint in the language used while drafting chargesheets and investigative narratives. It stressed that descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based, and free from expressions that carry stigmatic, divisive, or pejorative overtones. The Court linked the issue directly to the constitutional guarantee of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 21, while also noting that identity-based distinctions lacking a rational connection to the alleged offence are inconsistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 15.

Concluding its analysis, the Court warned that persistence with such nomenclature risks eroding due process and undermining the impartial administration of criminal justice, and observed that its avoidance is essential to ensure a constitutionally compliant prosecutorial process.