Court pulls up CBI over use of ‘South Group’ in excise case
A Delhi court, while discharging Arvind Kejriwal and others in the liquor policy case, criticised the CBI for using the term ‘South Group’. It said regional labelling was inappropriate and could prejudice proceedings, and asked the agency to exercise restraint
New Delhi: A Delhi court, which on Friday discharged former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 21 others in the politically charged liquor policy case, expressed its displeasure with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for using the phrase “South Group” while cautioning it to exercise restraint in its choice of language.
The court also said such a nomenclature finds no foundation in law, does not correspond to any legally cognisable classification and is wholly alien to the statutory framework governing criminal liability.
“The court considers it necessary to place on record its concern with the repeated and deliberate use of the expression, ‘South Group’, by the investigating agency to describe a set of accused persons, ostensibly based on their regional origin or place of residence,” Special Judge Jitendra Singh said.
“It is equally significant that no comparable regional descriptor has been employed for the remaining accused persons. The prosecution narrative does not speak of any ‘North Group’ or similar categorisation. The selective adoption of a geographically defined label is, therefore, plainly arbitrary and unwarranted,” the judge added.
Underlining that region-based labelling could create a prejudicial impression, the court said in a constitutional order founded upon equality before law and the unity and integrity of the country, descriptors rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose and are manifestly inappropriate.
“The continued use of this label, despite the absence of any legally sustainable basis, carries a real risk of colouring perception, causing unintended prejudice and diverting focus from the evidentiary material, which alone must guide adjudication,” it said.
The judge said the impropriety of identity-based labelling is not an abstract concern.
“Identity-based labelling, whether by ethnicity, nationality or regional origin, cannot be employed as a prosecutorial shorthand where such identity is irrelevant to the offence. Such labelling is not a mere irregularity of expression, it constitutes a constitutional infirmity capable of undermining the fairness of the proceedings themselves,” the court said.
It asked the central agency to exercise greater care, circumspection and restraint in the choice of language while drafting chargesheets and investigative narratives.
“Descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based and free from expressions that carry a stigmatic, divisive or pejorative overtone,” the judge said, adding that the use of such terminology violates constitutional provisions.
“Persistence with such nomenclature risks undermining the due process of law and is best avoided in the interest of an impartial and constitutionally compliant administration of criminal justice,” he added.
