New Delhi, February 27 A Delhi court, which on Friday acquitted former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 21 others in the politically charged liquor policy case, expressed its displeasure with the CBI for using the phrase "South Group," cautioning it to exercise restraint in its choice of language.
The court also stated that such a nomenclature has no basis in law, does not correspond to any legally cognizable classification, and is entirely foreign to the statutory framework governing criminal liability.
"The court considers it necessary to record its concern with the repeated and deliberate use of the expression, 'South Group', by the investigating agency to describe a group of accused persons, ostensibly based on their regional origin or place of residence," Special Judge Jitendra Singh said.
"It is equally significant that no comparable regional descriptor has been used for the remaining accused persons. The prosecution narrative does not refer to any 'North Group' or similar categorization. The selective adoption of a geographically-defined label is, therefore, plainly arbitrary and unwarranted," the judge added.
Emphasizing that a region-based labeling could create a prejudicial impression, the court stated in a constitutional order based on the principles of equality before the law and the unity and integrity of the country, descriptors rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose and are manifestly inappropriate.
"The continued use of this label, despite the absence of any legally sustainable basis, carries a real risk of coloring perceptions, causing unintended prejudice, and diverting focus from the evidentiary material, which alone must guide adjudication," it said.
The judge stated that the impropriety of identity-based labeling is not an abstract concern.
"Identity-based labeling, whether by ethnicity, nationality, or regional origin, cannot be used as a prosecutorial shorthand where such identity is irrelevant to the offense. Such labeling is not merely a matter of expression; it constitutes a constitutional infirmity capable of undermining the fairness of the proceedings themselves," the court said.
It asked the central agency to exercise greater care, circumspection, and restraint in the choice of language while drafting charge sheets and investigative narratives.
"Descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based, and free from expressions that carry a stigmatizing, divisive, or pejorative tone," the judge 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.