A Delhi court on Friday discharged former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 others in the CBI’s excise policy case, while raising serious concerns about the investigating agency’s use of the term “south group” to describe certain accused liquor businessmen.
In its order, Special Judge Jitender Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court 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 on the basis of their regional origin or place of residence.”
The judge also observed orally, “If the same chargesheet would have been filed in a court in Chennai, it would have been perceived offensive.”
The order stated that, “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.”
Selective Regional Labelling ‘Arbitrary And Unwarranted’
Under a section titled ‘Use of the Phrase “South Group”’, the court noted that no similar descriptor had been used for other accused persons.
“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,” the order said.
The court emphasised that the issue went beyond semantics.
“Region-based labelling carries an avoidable undertone and is capable of creating a prejudicial impression. It detracts from the settled requirement that criminal proceedings must remain dispassionate, evidence-centric, and insulated from extraneous considerations,” it added.
The judge clarified that references to the term in the order were made only because it appeared repeatedly in chargesheets and were not an endorsement of the terminology.
“In a constitutional order founded upon equality before law and the unity and integrity of the nation, descriptors rooted in regional identity serve no legitimate investigative or prosecutorial purpose and are manifestly inappropriate,” the order said.
It further warned that continued use of such labels “carries a real risk of colouring perception, causing unintended prejudice, and diverting focus from the evidentiary material.”
Court Cites US Judgment On Identity-Based References
To underline its point, the court referred to a US case, United States v. Cabrera (2000), where the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit set aside convictions due to repeated use of identity-based terminology.
The Delhi court cited the US court’s observation, “The government’s repeated references to the defendants as ‘Dominican drug dealers’ were improper. The ethnicity or national origin of a defendant is not relevant to proving the elements of a crime. Such references invite the jury to draw impermissible inferences based on nationality rather than evidence, and they risk appealing to bias rather than reason.”
The court also noted earlier warnings that introducing ethnicity without relevance to the offence constitutes an error, reiterating that “Criminal trials must be about what the defendant did, not who the defendant is.”
What Was The ‘South Group’?
The term “south group” or “south lobby” was used by the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to describe liquor businessmen largely from southern India, who were accused of paying kickbacks to Aam Aadmi Party leaders for favourable treatment under Delhi’s 2021-22 excise policy.
The agencies alleged that funds were routed through hawala transactions and shell companies and eventually used to finance the AAP’s Goa election campaign.
Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha, daughter of former Telangana chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, was among those named. She was arrested by the ED in March 2024, spent months in custody, and was later granted bail. She was also discharged by the court on Friday.
The ED had alleged that Kavitha acted as a key link between liquor businessmen and AAP leadership and that the group had “agreed to pay” Rs 100 crore as kickback.
Court Finds ‘No Material At All’ Against Accused
The court rejected the prosecution’s case, finding “no material at all” against the accused and concluding that “the case does not survive judicial scrutiny.”
It also flagged “misleading projections in the chargesheet” and pointed out “so many lacunas which do not support the evidence.”
The court criticised reliance on approver testimony, cautioning that using pardoned accused persons to fill gaps in the investigation and implicate others was constitutionally improper.
Reactions And Next Steps
K Kavitha’s lawyer Nitesh Rana said the court had objected to the use of the regional label.
Kavitha described the case as “a part of political vendetta”, asking: “Who will account for the time that I lost with my kids? Who will account for the time that I lost with my family?”
Her lawyer added that the ED’s money laundering case could be affected, saying: “Once the predicate offence is dropped, the money laundering case cannot be further pursued.”
The CBI has decided to challenge the Rouse Avenue court’s order in the Delhi High Court.
