Delhi excise policy case: Court slams CBI for use of term ‘South Group’

A Delhi court dismissed the CBI's case against Kejriwal, criticizing the use of "South Group" in the charge sheet as prejudicial and divisive.

NEW DELHI

The court went on to caution the prosecution against using such terms and reiterated that it should be avoided. (Shutterstock)

Junking the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) case against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others in the excise policy case, a Delhi court took exception to the repeated use of the phrase “South Group” by the CBI in its charge sheet.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh, even before formally reading out the operative parts of the order, expressed concern over the use of the term.

The judge remarked, “Such kind of terminology I feel should be avoided…is it possible that if the CBI had filed the same chargesheet in a Chennai court, it would not be perceived offensive?”

The court went on to question Special Public Prosecutor, DP Singh, as to who coined the term. “Why didn’t you say those in the north among the accused are the north group?”

The court went on to caution the prosecution against using such terms and reiterated that it should be avoided.

According to the CBI’s case, several accused officials of the Delhi government’s excise department, in connivance with Kejriwal, former Delhi deputy CM Sisodia and others, are alleged to have manipulated margins, relaxing eligibility norms and diluting related-entity restriction, allegedly in favour of a lobby of liquor businessmen referred to as the “South Group”, in pursuance of a prior understanding.

The court’s disagreement with the use of the phrase was also reflected in its detailed order.

The court stated, “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 court said that while it could not find a comparable judgment within the framework of the Indian law to complement its argument, it referred to a case precedent in the United States from 2000, wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit went as far as to set aside a conviction as the prosecution was repeatedly using of an identity-based terminology to term the accused as “Dominican drug dealers”.

The court said that the case proved how criminal trials must be about what the defendant did, and not who the defendant is. The judge cautioned investigating agencies to exercise restraint in their choice of language while drafting charge sheets and investigative narratives.

“Description of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based, and free from expressions that carry a stigmatic, divisive, or pejorative undertone,” the order read.

The court said that the use of such terms had a direct bearing on the guarantee of a just and fair trial.

Referring to the “South Group” in its charge sheet, the prosecution contended that at least four accused persons—Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Ramchandra Pillai, Mootha Goutam and Sarath Chandra Reddy—were part of the group and negotiated illegal gratification of ₹90-100 crore. The CBI claimed that Sisodia played a vital role in coordinating and holding discussions with members of the group to formulate the policy.

The prosecution claimed that the alleged South Group was headed by a private firm, Indospirits, which allegedly earned profit of ₹29.29 crore, which formed part of the funds which were circulated as kickbacks.