Published Feb 27, 2026 | 3:07 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 27, 2026 | 3:10 PM
Rouse Avenue court in Delhi. (Facebook)
Synopsis: 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.
The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi came down heavily on the CBI for its “arbitrary and unwarranted” use of the phrase “South Group”, which is “capable of creating a prejudicial impression”.
The court made the observation in its order discharging all 23 people accused in the Delhi Excise Policy case on Friday, 27 February.
Placing on record its concern over the repeated and “deliberate” use of the expression ‘South Group’ to describe a set of accused people based on their regional origin or place of residence, the court said such a nomenclature has no foundation in law, “does not correspond to any legally cognisable classification, and is wholly alien to the statutory framework governing criminal liability.”
Special Judge Jitendra Singh also noted with equal significance that no comparable regional descriptor has been used for the remaining accused people.
“The prosecution narrative does not speak of any ‘North Group’ or similar categorisation,” the court noted.
“The selective adoption of a geographically defined label is, therefore, plainly arbitrary and unwarranted,” it said.
The court further noted that the concern went beyond mere 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. 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,” it said.
The judge noted that “impugned expression has been repeatedly employed in successive charge-sheets and, for that limited reason alone, this Court has been constrained to refer to it while summarising and analysing the prosecution case.”
Rejecting the usage, the court said the continued use of the 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.”
Stressing further on the impropriety of identity-based labelling, the court said it was not a matter of abstract concern, and drew attention to judicial condemnation in comparative constitutional jurisprudence, and cited the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit treating the issue as going to the very root of a fair criminal trial, and went so far as to set aside the conviction itself on account of the repeated use of identity-based terminology.
“Identity-based labelling, whether by ethnicity, nationality, or regional origin, cannot be employed as a prosecutorial shorthand where such identity is irrelevant to the offence. Such labelling is not a mere irregularity of expression; it constitutes a constitutional infirmity capable of undermining the fairness of the proceedings themselves,” the court said.
Summing up its message, it said “criminal adjudication must rest on conduct proved by evidence, not on who the accused is or where he comes from.”
The court cautioned the investigating agency to exercise greater care, circumspection, and restraint in the choice of language while drafting chargesheets and investigative
narratives.
“Descriptions of accused persons must remain strictly neutral, evidence-based, and free from expressions that carry a stigmatic, divisive, or pejorative overtone. The continued use of such
terminology bears directly upon the fairness of the criminal process and touches upon the guarantee of a just, fair, and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. Equally, the employment of descriptors founded on regional or identity-based distinctions, in the absence of any rational nexus with the alleged offence, is inconsistent with the constitutional command of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15,” it said.
The judge further asserted that persistence with such nomenclature risked undermining the due process of law. It “is best avoided in the interest of an impartial and constitutionally compliant administration of criminal justice,” the court said.
Prominent names in the “South Group” include former YSRCP MP Magunta Srinuvasulu Reddy, his son Magunta Raghava Reddy, and Kavitha, daughter of BRS chief and former Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao.
Hyderabad-based businessman Arun Ramachandran Pillai was also arrested on the contention that he was among the three key representatives of Kavitha.
Two other representatives of Kavitha were said to be beauty salon chain owner Abhishek Boinpally and chartered accountant Butchibabu Gorantla.
The ED, which also probed the case, mentioned the name of Hyderabad-based industrialist P Sharath Chandra Reddy in its second prosecution complaint filed in the court.
Apart from Sharath Chandra Reddy and Abhishek Boinpally, Vijay Nair of the AAP and Benoy Babu, an official of the liquor company Pernod Ricard, allegedly played a crucial role in the Delhi liquor scam.
The ED had questioned Butchibabu Gorantla to uncover details regarding the “South Group”. The main focus was on his association with Kavitha.
The ED interrogated Butchibabu after a special court for CBI cases in New Delhi granted the agency permission on 22 February, 2023, to question him for two days in connection with the case.
