Delhi High Court Demands Status Report on 2020 Riots Probe, Questions Scope of Writ Jurisdiction

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has once again turned its focus to the lingering aftermath of the February 2020 North East Delhi riots, directing the Delhi Police to submit a comprehensive status report on the investigations conducted to date. A division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, is navigating a complex web of petitions demanding judicial intervention, including the formation of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the registration of FIRs against prominent political figures for alleged hate speeches.

The hearing brought to the forefront a fundamental question of judicial oversight: what is the appropriate forum for supervising a police investigation, and what are the limits of the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such matters? While scheduling the next hearing for November 21, the bench’s oral observations suggest a potential reluctance to directly intervene in the day-to-day supervision of the probe, pointing petitioners towards the magistrate courts as the primary venue for such grievances.

The Core Contentions: A Call for an Independent SIT

At the heart of the matter lies a deep-seated distrust in the impartiality of the Delhi Police's investigation. Several petitions, spearheaded by organisations like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, argue that the very agency implicated in allegations of complicity and inaction cannot be trusted to conduct a fair and thorough probe.

The plea by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, for instance, calls for the establishment of an SIT headed by a retired judge from the Supreme Court or Delhi High Court, with a specific and crucial stipulation: "members of the Delhi Police shall be excluded from this SIT." This demand underscores the petitioners' core argument that the investigation is compromised from its inception.

During the hearing, as counsel for the organisation detailed the scale of the violence, the bench made a pointed observation. “FIRs have already been registered. The police is already investigating. Nothing remains in this,” the court remarked, signaling a preliminary view that the existing legal mechanisms are functioning.

However, counsel for the petitioners countered that the fairness of the police investigation is precisely what is under challenge. In response, Justice Chaudhary articulated a key jurisprudential hurdle for the petitioners: “You challenge it before the magistrate. The magistrate will supervise. These are question of facts. We cannot entertain question of facts in writ petitions. You can give that evidence to the magistrate who will look into it and pass orders. High Court cannot do this.”

This judicial guidance frames the central legal debate. While Article 226 of the Constitution grants High Courts wide powers to issue writs, these powers are discretionary. Courts are often cautious about stepping into the shoes of the investigating agency or the supervisory magistrate, especially when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Hate Speech Allegations and the Shadow of Impunity

A significant portion of the litigation revolves around the alleged role of inflammatory speeches by political leaders in inciting the violence. A plea filed by Shaikh Mujtaba specifically seeks the registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma for allegedly making hateful comments that precipitated the riots. Another petition by 'Lawyers Voice' makes similar allegations against other political figures.

This issue has a protracted history. In December 2021, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the gravity and delay, had directed the Delhi High Court to decide one of these petitions "expeditiously, preferably within three months." The fact that the matter remains pending nearly two years later highlights the procedural and political complexities involved. The High Court's ultimate decision on whether to order the registration of FIRs against these high-profile individuals will be a critical test of judicial resolve in holding political actors accountable for their rhetoric.

A Spectrum of Demands and Counter-Claims

The batch of petitions reflects the deeply polarized narratives surrounding the riots. While some pleas focus on police inaction and political incitement, others present a competing perspective.

• Action Against Police: Activist Brinda Karat's petition seeks an independent investigation into complaints against members of the police and Rapid Action Force (RAF) for alleged atrocities and offences committed during the riots.
  
  
• Broader Conspiracy Probe: A petition by Ajay Gautam has requested an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the alleged funding of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), claiming they were sponsored by organisations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) with support from political parties. This petition also seeks FIRs against leaders like Waris Pathan and Asaduddin Owaisi for their speeches.

This wide array of claims and counter-claims complicates the judicial task. The court must meticulously separate issues of law from disputed questions of fact and determine which prayers fall within its writ jurisdiction.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The upcoming hearing on November 21 will be pivotal. The status report from the Delhi Police, detailing the number of FIRs registered, charge sheets filed, and cases pending investigation, will provide the factual bedrock for the court's further deliberations.

For the legal community, this case serves as a crucial case study on several fronts: 1. Limits of Writ Jurisdiction: The court's final stance will clarify the extent to which a High Court will entertain petitions seeking direct supervision of a police probe, especially when the CrPC provides a detailed mechanism for the same through the magistrate. The bench's oral remarks suggest a high threshold for intervention. 2. Accountability for Hate Speech: The petitions seeking FIRs against politicians test the legal framework for hate speech under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. A judicial directive to file an FIR would be a significant development, potentially lowering the perceived bar of impunity for inflammatory political rhetoric. 3. The Standard for an Independent Probe: Should the court find the Delhi Police's investigation to be demonstrably biased or unfair, its decision on constituting an SIT could set a precedent for future cases involving allegations against the state machinery itself.

As the High Court prepares to review the police's progress report, all eyes will be on whether it chooses to carve out a path of active judicial supervision or reaffirms the primacy of the magisterial courts in overseeing the pursuit of justice for the victims of the 2020 Delhi riots.