DELHI COURT CRITICISES CBI’S USE OF ‘SOUTH GROUP’ LABEL IN LIQUOR POLICY CASE:

A Delhi court on Friday strongly criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation for repeatedly using the expression “South Group” in its chargesheet while examining the corruption case arising out of the alleged liquor policy scam. The Court found the use of such a geographically defined label to be arbitrary, unwarranted, and unsupported by any legal foundation. The observations were made by Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts while discharging all 23 accused persons in the case, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and K Kavitha.

While dismantling the prosecution case, the Court expressed serious concern over the repeated and deliberate use of the phrase “South Group” by the Central Bureau of Investigation to describe a subset of accused persons, purportedly based on their regional origin or place of residence. The judge noted that such a nomenclature finds no support in law and does not correspond to any legally recognisable classification under the statutory framework governing criminal liability. According to the Court, criminal law recognises individuals based on their alleged conduct and role in the offence, not on regional or identity-based groupings.

The Court further observed that the arbitrariness of the label was evident from the fact that no similar regional descriptor was used for other accused persons. There was no reference to any corresponding “North Group” or comparable categorisation in the prosecution narrative. This selective adoption of a region-based label, the Court held, was unjustified and raised concerns beyond mere terminology. The judge underscored that region-based labelling is capable of carrying implicit undertones and may create a prejudicial impression, consciously or otherwise, in the mind of the reader.

Emphasising the constitutional dimensions of the issue, the Court held that criminal proceedings must remain strictly evidence-centric, dispassionate, and free from extraneous considerations. In a constitutional order premised on equality before law and the unity and integrity of the nation, descriptors rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose. The Court cautioned that continued use of such labels, despite the absence of any legally sustainable basis, risks colouring perception, causing unintended prejudice, and diverting attention away from the evidentiary material, which alone must guide adjudication.

The judge made it clear that identity-based labelling whether founded on ethnicity, nationality, or regional origin cannot be used as prosecutorial shorthand where such identity has no rational nexus with the alleged offence. The Court characterised such labelling not as a mere lapse in expression, but as a constitutional infirmity capable of undermining the fairness of criminal proceedings. It reiterated that criminal adjudication must rest solely on conduct established by legally admissible evidence, and not on who the accused is or where the accused comes from.

Accordingly, the Court cautioned the CBI to exercise greater care, circumspection, and restraint in the language employed 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 noted that such language bears directly on the fairness of the criminal process and implicates the guarantee of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further held that the use of descriptors based on regional or identity distinctions, in the absence of any rational connection to the alleged offence, is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15. It concluded that persistence with such nomenclature poses a real risk to due process and must be avoided in the interest of maintaining an impartial, constitutionally compliant, and fair administration of criminal justice.