NEW DELHI: A Delhi court, which on Friday dismissed 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” while warning it to exercise restraint in its choice of language.
The court also said that such a designation has no basis in law, does not correspond to any legally known classification, and is completely alien to the legal framework governing criminal liability.
“The court finds it necessary to record its concern over the repeated and deliberate use of the phrase ‘southern group’ by the investigating agency to describe a group of accused, on the basis of their regional origin or place of residence,” Special Judge Jitendra Singh said.
The judge added: “Equally important is that no similar regional description was used for the remaining defendants. The prosecution’s account does not speak of any ‘northern group’ or similar classification. The selective adoption of a geographically specific designation is therefore clearly arbitrary and unjustified.”
Emphasizing that classification based on region could create a prejudicial impression, the court said that in a constitutional order based on equality before the law and the unity and integrity of the country, descriptions rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate purpose in investigation or prosecution and are clearly inappropriate.
“Continuing to use this label, despite the absence of any sustainable legal basis, carries a real risk of coloring perception, causing unintended bias and diverting focus from the evidentiary material, which alone should guide the adjudication process,” she said.
The judge said that the inappropriateness of classification based on identity was not a theoretical concern.
“Classification on the basis of identity, whether on the basis of race, nationality or territorial origin, cannot be used as a shortcut for the prosecution when such identity is irrelevant to the crime. Such classification is not merely an impropriety of expression, but constitutes a constitutional deficiency capable of undermining the fairness of the proceedings themselves,” the court said.
It asked the central agency to exercise greater care, caution and restraint in choosing language while drafting chargesheets and investigation narratives.
“Descriptions of the accused must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based and free of stigmatizing, divisive or contemptuous expressions,” the judge said, adding that the use of such terms violates constitutional provisions.
He added, “Insisting on such designations risks undermining due process and is best avoided in favor of an impartial and constitutionally compatible administration of criminal justice.”
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
