'Unwarranted': Why Delhi court rapped CBI for 'South Group' tag in liquor policy case

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Friday sharply criticised the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for repeatedly using the term “South Group” in its chargesheet, while it discharged former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former education minister Manish Sisodia and 21 others in the liquor policy case.The court said the nomenclature had no basis in law and cautioned the agency to exercise restraint in its choice of language in investigative narratives. Special Judge Jitendra Singh said, “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.”“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," he added, as quoted by news agency PTI.The court also said that region-based labelling could create a prejudicial impression and was inconsistent with constitutional principles.“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.Observing that the issue was not merely semantic, adding that, “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 Judge Jitendra Singh asked the central agency to exercise “greater care, circumspection and restraint” 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,” he 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.