Listen To This Post
Says identity-based nomenclature has no legal basis, warns it risks prejudice and violates constitutional principles
New Delhi: A Delhi court has sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for repeatedly using the term “South Group” in the Delhi excise policy case, calling the nomenclature arbitrary, legally untenable and constitutionally inappropriate.
The strong judicial observation came a day after the Rouse Avenue Court discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Deputy CM Manish Sisodia and 21 others, ruling that there was no evidence of criminal conspiracy or wrongdoing in the formulation of the now-scrapped liquor policy.
Court Questions Legitimacy of ‘South Group’ Terminology
Special Judge Jitendra Singh expressed concern over the investigating agency’s repeated and deliberate use of the expression “South Group” to describe certain accused persons based on their regional origin or place of residence.
“The 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 observed.
The judge pointed out that the prosecution selectively applied the regional label, without providing an equivalent classification for other accused persons.
“The prosecution narrative does not speak of any ‘North Group’ or similar categorisation. The selective adoption of a geographically-defined label is plainly arbitrary and unwarranted,” the court noted.
Identity-Based Labelling Risks Prejudice, Violates Constitutional Values
The court warned that such regional labelling could create prejudice and undermine the fairness of criminal proceedings, emphasising that India’s constitutional framework is founded on equality before law.
“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,” the judge said.
It further cautioned that such terminology carries a real risk of colouring perception and diverting attention from actual evidence, which must remain the sole basis of judicial adjudication.
Calling it a “constitutional infirmity”, the court said the practice could compromise due process and weaken the integrity of criminal justice.
CBI Asked to Exercise Restraint, Maintain Neutrality in Chargesheets
The court directed the CBI to exercise greater care and restraint when drafting charge sheets and investigative narratives.
“Descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based and free from expressions that carry stigmatic, divisive or pejorative overtone,” the judge said.
The court underscored that persistence with such terminology could undermine impartiality and must be avoided to ensure constitutionally compliant administration of justice. The observations mark a significant judicial rebuke of investigative practices, coming in a politically sensitive case that had triggered nationwide controversy and prolonged legal scrutiny.
