Today, On 27th February, A Delhi court criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation for tagging some accused in the Delhi excise policy case as the ‘South Group’ while avoiding any corresponding ‘North Group’ label for others. Calling it plainly arbitrary and unwarranted.
A Delhi court criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for labelling certain accused individuals in the Delhi Excise Policy case as the “South Group.”
The court cleared all accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, and Telangana Jagruthi President K Kavitha, of any wrongdoing.
The CBI alleged that the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led government manipulated the 2021-22 excise policy to enable monopolization and cartelization within Delhi’s liquor trade. They claimed changes were intentionally made to benefit a lobbying group of liquor businessmen dubbed the ‘South Group.’
In his ruling, Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh expressed his dismay over the CBI’s recurring use of the term ‘South Group’ to identify certain accused individuals based on their geographical origin or residence.
The court asserted that this terminology lacks a legal foundation, does not fit within any legally accepted classification, and is incompatible with the statutory framework governing criminal accountability.
Moreover, it questioned why the agency had not applied a term like ‘North Group’ for the other accused, stating,
“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.”
ALSO READ: Court Directs Case Against Arvind Kejriwal for Alleged Misuse of Public Funds
The court emphasized that its concerns went beyond mere semantics, clarifying that regional labeling carries inherent biases and can create negative perceptions.
It stressed,
“It detracts from the settled requirement that criminal proceedings must remain dispassionate, evidence-centric, and insulated from extraneous considerations. In a constitutional order founded upon equality before law and the unity and integrity of the nation, descriptors rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose and are manifestly inappropriate.”
Noting the repeated use of the term in multiple charge sheets, the court explained its obligation to address it in the ruling while clarifying that this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the term itself.
The judge highlighted,
“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,”
The judge emphasized that the issue of identity-based labeling transcends mere theoretical discussions.
Referring to a decision in the United States, the judge noted,
“In United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2000), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit treated the issue as going to the very root of a fair criminal trial, and went so far as to set aside the conviction itself on account of the repeated use of identity-based terminology by the prosecution and law-enforcement witnesses, where such identity had no bearing on the elements of the offence.”
The Court urged the CBI to exercise increased caution, mindfulness, and restraint when selecting language for charge-sheets and investigative reports.
In this context, the Court made several important recommendations and observations:
- Descriptions of accused individuals should be strictly neutral, supported by evidence, and devoid of language that may carry a stigmatizing, divisive, or derogatory implication.
- The ongoing use of such language directly impacts the fairness of the criminal process and relates to the constitutional guarantee of just, fair, and reasonable procedures under Article 21.
- Additionally, using descriptors based on regional or identity distinctions without any rational connection to the alleged crime contradicts the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination established in Article 15.
- Continued use of such terminology could compromise the due process of law and should be avoided to ensure an impartial and constitutionally compliant administration of justice.
The case emerged in 2022 when the CBI filed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the 2021-22 Delhi Excise Policy had been manipulated to enable monopolization and cartelization in the liquor trade.
This investigation was prompted by a complaint from Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena on July 20, 2022. The CBI claimed that leaders from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) received kickbacks from liquor manufacturers due to the policy’s manipulation.
Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also initiated a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The situation led to numerous arrests of opposition figures, which some criticized as politically motivated. Allegations surfaced that a criminal conspiracy had been formulated by AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Kejriwal, along with various unnamed private entities during the policy’s development stage.
It was claimed that intentional loopholes were created in the policy to benefit specific liquor licensees and conspirators after the tender process.
Many of the political leaders spent significant time in jail, as bail requests were denied by the Rouse Avenue Court and the Delhi High Court. It was only later that the Supreme Court granted them relief.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arvind Kejriwal