A Delhi court on Friday censured the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for using the term "South Group" to label certain accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case.

The Court today gave a clean chit to all accused including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Telangana Jagruthi President K Kavitha.

The CBI's case was that the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led government manipulated the 2021-22 policy to facilitate monopolisation and cartelisation of liquor trade in Delhi.

Some changes were deliberately made to favour a lobby of liquor businessmen referred to as the 'South Group,' it was alleged.

In the verdict, Special Judge (PC Act) Jitendra Singh expressed concern over the repeated and deliberate use of the expression 'South Group' by the CBI to describe a set of accused persons, ostensibly on the basis of their regional origin or place of residence. 

The Court 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.

It questioned why the agency had not employed a term like 'North Group' for the remaining accused.

"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 Additional Sessions Judge said.

The Court clarified that its concern was not confined to semantics, explaining that region-based labelling carries an avoidable undertone and is capable of creating a prejudicial impression.

"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," the judge said.

The Court noted that since the expression was repeatedly employed in successive charge-sheets, it was constrained to refer to it in the order.

It clarified such reference must not be construed as approval or endorsement of the terminology itself.

"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 underscored.

He added that the impropriety of identity-based labelling is not a matter of abstract concern.

While highlighting a verdict from the United States, the judge said that the impropriety of identity-based labelling is not a matter of abstract concern.

"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 judge recorded.

The Court cautioned the CBI to exercise greater care, circumspection and restraint in the choice of language while drafting charge-sheets and investigative narratives.

In this regard, it also made following notable suggestions and observations:

1. Descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based, and free from expressions that carry a stigmatic, divisive, or pejorative overtone.

2. The continued use of such terminology bears directly upon the fairness of the criminal process and touches upon the guarantee of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Equally, the employment of descriptors founded on regional or identity-based distinctions, in the absence of any rational nexus with the alleged offence, is inconsistent with the constitutional command of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15.

4. 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.

Additional Solicitor General and Special Public Prosecutor DP Singh, Senior Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar Garg and counsels Manu Mishra, Garima Saxena, Shreya Dutt Imaan Khera and Dig Vijay Singh appeared for the CBI. 

Arvind Kejriwal appeared through Senior Advocate N Hariharan with Mudit Jain, Mohd Irshad, Mohd Asgar Ali, Rudraksh Nakra, Ayush Goswami, Lakshya Aggarwal, Harjas Singh Gujral, Samta Sharma, Sona Singh, Vasudhra Raj Tyagi, Aman Akhtar, Arjun Singh Mandla, Vasundhara N, Punya Rekha Angora, Amaan Shreyas, Sana Singh and Mahima Malhotra.

Manish Sisodia was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca John along advocates with Vivek Jain, Sadiq Noor, Rohit Nair and Mohd Irshad.

Durgesh Pathak was represented by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with Karan Sharma, Rajan Jain, Mohit Siwach, Harsh Gautam and Vignesh.

 Kuldeep Singh was represented by advocates SS Rana Naveen Kumar and Abhishek Mahal while Narender Singh appeared through Pardeep Rana, Gagan Bhatnagar, Tushar Rohmetra and Vibhor Choudhary. 

Vijay Nair was represented by Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana along with advocates Stuti Gujral Vrinda Bhandari Piyush Kumar Nishant Sharma Syed Miran Ahmad Vidushi Sabharwal Arjun V Harihar and Vipin Kumar

Abhishek Boinpally was represented by advocates Sumer Singh Boparai Surya Pratap Singh Abhilash Kumar Pathak Shubham Raj Anand and Sirhaan Seth.

 Arun Ramchandra Pillai appeared through Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey with advocates Nitesh Rana, Joy Banerjee, Amrita Vatsa, Satyam Sharma, Aditi Singh, Aditya Narayan, Raksha Tripathi, Suyash Pandey, RB Siddhartha, Muskan Sharma, Yash Saxena, Samarth Panwar and Khushi Arora.

Mootha Gautam was represented by Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy with advocates Shivendra Dwivedi, Onmichon Ramrar, Lavkesh Bhambani, Bhumika Yadav and Anmol Gupta.

Sameer Mahandru was represented by advocates Dhruv Gupta, Anubhav Garg, and Yash Raj Mehran. 

Amandeep Singh Dhall was represented by Adit S Pujari, Shaswat Sarin, Shaurya Mittal and Dhanya Visweswaran, while Arjun Pandey appeared through Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with Shivendra Dwivedi, Varisha Sharma and Onmichon Ramrar.

Butchibabu Gorantla was represented by Senior Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana along with Abhishek Singh, Talib Mustafa, Anmol Aggarwal, Ketan Kumar Roy, Vishvendra Tomar, Harsh Srivastava, Dikksha Ramnani and Chetan Nagpal. 

Rajesh Joshi, Damodar Prasad Sharma, Prince Kumar and Arvind Kumar Singh were represented by Rajat Bhardwaj and Dushyant Chaudhary.

Chanpreet Singh Rayat was represented by Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta with Shailendra Singh, Baani Khanna, Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani and Komal Thakkar.

K Kavitha was represented by P Mohit Rao and Eugene S Philomene.

Amit Arora was represented by Prabhav Ralli, Dev Vrat Arya, Samraat Saxena and Deeya Mittal.

Vinod Chauhan was represented by Senior Advocate Rebecca M John along with Gagan Minocha, Tusharika Mattoo, Pravir and Shivani Sehrawat.

Ashish Mathur appeared through Harsh Bora, Sahil Ghai and Aekansh Agarwal, while P Sarath Chandra Reddy was represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Navlendu Kumar, Vivek Chandra Jaiswal, Sahil Yadav and Arpit Goel.

[Read Judgment]