Delhi Court Criticizes CBI's Use of 'South Group' Label in Liquor Policy Case
A Delhi court on Friday strongly criticized the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for repeatedly using the term "South Group" in its chargesheet related to the liquor policy case. The court described this geographically defined label as "plainly arbitrary and unwarranted," raising significant concerns about fairness in criminal proceedings guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court's Strong Observations on Regional Labeling
Special judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts emphasized that the selective adoption of such regional terminology undermines the principles of justice. "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 noted while acquitting all accused in the case.
The court pointed out that no comparable regional descriptor, such as "North Group," had been employed for other parties involved. This selective approach, according to the court, creates an unfair perception and violates the fundamental right to equality before law.
Origins of the Controversial Term
The term "South Group" traces back to a July 2022 report submitted by then Delhi chief secretary Naresh Kumar to lieutenant governor VK Saxena. The report alleged lapses in the now-scrapped excise policy and claimed that Vijay Nair, AAP's then communication in-charge, was allegedly paid Rs 100 crore in advance kickbacks by a "South Group" comprising Hyderabad-based entities.
According to the report, this group was allegedly granted "undue favours" in return for these payments. However, the court has now questioned the validity and appropriateness of using such geographically specific labels in legal proceedings.
Broader Implications for Criminal Justice
Emphasizing that the issue was not merely semantic, the court warned that "region-based labeling detracts from the settled requirement that criminal proceedings must remain dispassionate, evidence-centric and insulated from extraneous considerations."
The court clarified that its reference to the term was only to summarize the prosecution's case and cautioned against treating this as an endorsement of the terminology. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and ensuring that all parties receive fair treatment regardless of their geographical origins or associations.
Constitutional Concerns Raised
The court's observations highlight important constitutional questions about how investigative agencies frame their cases and present evidence. By labeling certain entities based on their geographical location, there's a risk of introducing bias and prejudice into legal proceedings that should be strictly evidence-based.
This case serves as an important reminder that criminal justice must remain focused on facts and evidence rather than potentially prejudicial labels that could influence perceptions and outcomes. The court's strong stance reinforces the principle that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under law, free from arbitrary classifications that might affect the fairness of legal proceedings.
