Why Delhi Court Slammed CBI For 'South Group' Label in Excise Case, Cautioned Against Regional Stereotyping
AAP national convenor Arvind Kejriwal was acquitted by a court in Delhi in the Delhi excise case.
Published : March 1, 2026 at 8:21 AM IST
By Krishnanand
New Delhi: In a significant ruling on February 27, 2026, a special court in Delhi acquitted former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and 22 other accused persons in the Delhi Excise Policy case, while at the same time delivering a pointed rebuke to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for its repeated use of the expression "South Group" in its charge sheets.
The court's observations formed a substantial part of its judgment, expressing deep concern over what it termed the arbitrary and legally unsustainable categorisation of certain accused persons under a region-based label. According to the prosecution, the so-called "South Group" was allegedly headed by K. Kavitha and comprised Sarath Reddy, Abhishek Boinpally, Arun Pillai, Mootha Gautam and Butchibabu.
The CBI had alleged that this group was favoured through the grant of an L-1 licence to Indospirits, in which Sameer Mahendru was a stakeholder. Arvind Kumar Singh was described as closely linked to this group, while Amandeep Singh Dhall was projected as another beneficiary who allegedly agreed to facilitate the recoupment of upfront payments purportedly intended for use in the Goa elections.
However, the court made it clear that its concern went beyond the facts alleged. It took exception to the repeated use of the term "South Group," observing that such a label has no basis in criminal law and does not correspond to any legally recognised classification. The judge noted that the prosecution had not adopted any similar regional descriptor for other accused persons; there was no reference to a "North Group" or any comparable categorisation. This selective use of a geographically defined term, the court held, was plainly arbitrary.
The court emphasised that the issue was not merely one of language. It cautioned that region-based labelling carries undertones that could create a prejudicial impression, potentially distracting from the requirement that criminal trials must remain focused strictly on evidence. In a constitutional framework founded on equality before law and national unity, descriptors based on regional identity serve no legitimate investigative purpose, the court observed.
While acknowledging that the term had been used consistently in successive charge sheets—compelling the court to refer to it when summarising the prosecution's case—the judge clarified that such reference should not be construed as judicial approval. The continued use of the label, the court warned, risked colouring perception and shifting attention away from the evidentiary material that alone must guide adjudication.
To underline the gravity of its concern, the court referred to comparative constitutional jurisprudence, particularly the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Cabrera. In that case, the American appellate court had set aside convictions after prosecutors repeatedly referred to the accused as "Dominican drug dealers," even though ethnicity had no bearing on the elements of the offence. The US court had held that injecting identity into a criminal trial, when irrelevant to the charges, risks inviting bias rather than reason and undermines due process.
Drawing from that reasoning, the Delhi court concluded that identity-based shorthand—whether rooted in ethnicity, nationality or regional origin—cannot substitute for evidence. Criminal adjudication, it stressed, must rest on proven conduct, not on who the accused are or where they come from. Such labelling, the court said, is not a harmless irregularity but a practice capable of compromising the fairness of proceedings.
The ruling sparks sharp reactions within the legal community.
Advocate Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, who practices in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, described the use of the term "South Group" as "atrocious" and contrary to the spirit of national integration. Speaking to ETV Bharat, he said such nomenclature by a federal investigative agency was unconstitutional. "It is divisive and against the principle of federalism," Panigrahi asserted, adding that investigative agencies must be especially careful not to adopt terminology that could fragment the constitutional ethos.
Echoing similar concerns, Advocate Shashwat Singh Gaur, also a practitioner at the Delhi High Court, said there should be no mention of caste, creed, religion or place of origin of any accused or litigant in an FIR or charge sheet unless it is directly relevant to the ingredients of the offence. "These factors have no relevance in the eyes of the law when a court is adjudicating a case," he told ETV Bharat. Gaur further contended that the use of such expressions by a government department not only stains the fairness of proceedings but may also run contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination on specified grounds.
However, not all members of the Bar agreed with the court's strong disapproval. Manish Kumar Chaudhary, a practising lawyer in the Delhi High Court, argued that the special court may have read too much into the terminology. According to him, if an offence committed in one region is linked to activities in another because a certain accused operated from there, describing the group in geographical terms may not necessarily amount to prejudice.
"The fairness of a criminal trial ultimately depends on the evaluation of admissible evidence and the application of statutory standards — not on the nomenclature chosen to push the prosecution's narrative," Chaudhary said. He also disagreed with the court's reliance on United States v. Cabrera, arguing that the American case involved references to ethnicity, which he said was not comparable to a geographical description in the present matter. "These two cases are not comparable," he maintained.
As the case involving high-profile acquittals is heard at the Appellate level in the Delhi High Court, the trial court's observations on prosecutorial language are likely to resonate beyond the confines of the Delhi Excise Policy case. Particularly, in the context of a broader debate on how investigative narratives are framed, and how far courts of law in India are willing to go to safeguard the neutrality of criminal trials.
Read More
