Back
Dismisses Petitions for SIT Probe into 2020 Delhi Riots Citing
The on Monday dismissed a batch of long-pending petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2020 North-East Delhi riots and the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia University, while also refusing to direct the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against several political leaders over alleged hate speeches. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain held that the petitions did not disclose any warranting and noted an element of "" in the manner certain individuals and speeches had been singled out for action by the respective petitioners.
The rulings bring to a close a set of legal challenges that had been pending before the High Court for over six years, raising serious questions about the conduct of the , the role of inflammatory political rhetoric, and the adequacy of the criminal justice response to one of the worst incidents of communal violence in the national capital in recent decades.
Background: The 2020 North-East Delhi Riots and Jamia Violence
The riots in North-East Delhi erupted during protests against the and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). Over 50 people lost their lives, and hundreds were injured in the violence that saw clashes between groups supporting and opposing the legislation. The violence followed weeks of protests at places like Shaheen Bagh and came after alleged hate speeches by political figures, including BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, and Parvesh Verma, who were accused of inciting communal animosity.
Separately, in , entered the campus of Jamia Millia Islamia University to disperse students protesting the CAA. Multiple complaints alleged excessive use of force, with students reporting injuries, destruction of property, and indiscriminate beatings. The later described the student gathering as an "unlawful assembly," but petitioners maintained that police action was disproportionate.
Petitions Sought FIRs, SIT Probe, and Action Against Police
The batch of 15 petitions included a plea by Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq seeking FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma for alleged hate speeches that, according to the petition, contributed to the circumstances leading to the riots. Another petition by the organisation "Lawyers Voice" sought action over speeches by Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, as well as AAP's Manish Sisodia, AIMIM's Akbaruddin Owaisi, and several others.
Former CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat also approached the court, seeking an independent investigation into alleged offences and atrocities committed by personnel, members of the , and other state functionaries during the riots. A separate petition by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind similarly sought a court-monitored probe. Activist Ajay Gautam demanded an investigation by the into alleged foreign funding and international conspiracy behind the anti-CAA protests.
In relation to the Jamia violence, law student Nabila Hasan filed a petition seeking transfer of the investigation from the to an independent agency. The opposed the plea, arguing that CCTV footage from inside and outside the university had been collected and preserved "well in time."
Court’s Reasoning: No ,
Pronouncing the verdict on Monday, the Division Bench stated that
"for the reasons mentioned in the judgments, both the petitions (batch) are dismissed."
The detailed judgments are yet to be published, but the court's oral observations and the brief order available indicate a robust rejection of the petitioners' arguments.
On the issue of hate speeches, the Bench observed that the record before it
"does indicate an element of
in the manner in which certain individuals and particular speeches have been targeted for action by respective petitioners."
The court declined to record any finding on the
of the petitioners but noted that, in several instances, only portions or excerpts of the purported speeches were placed before it, and their completeness and authenticity were not established.
"The context in which such statements were made is also disputed. We, therefore, cannot proceed on the assumption that the material placed before us represents complete and accurate versions of the speeches,"
the court said.
Regarding the demand for an SIT or independent probe into the riots, the court held that the petitions did not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting displacement of the ongoing investigations. It noted that as of
, 757 criminal cases had been registered in connection with the riots. Among them, investigation had been handed over to the
in 65 cases, charge sheets had been filed in 369 cases, proceedings in 212 cases were pending before criminal courts, and 249 cases remained under probe. The court emphasised that
"the criminal law has, thus, taken its own course and continues to operate through the ordinary judicial process."
The Bench also rejected the argument that allegations against some police personnel automatically rendered the entire investigative machinery of the
institutionally incapable of conducting a
.
"An allegation that police personnel committed misconduct in the course of the riots is not, by itself, an allegation that the subsequent investigation into the incidents was conducted improperly,"
it reasoned.
On the petitioners' reliance on the fact-finding report of the , the court said that while such a report cannot be disregarded, it cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive determination of culpability or as establishing that the investigations as a whole were tainted. The court concluded that much of the material consisted of unauthenticated video recordings, newspaper clippings, and media excerpts that were disputed by the police.
Implications for Legal Practice and the Justice System
The dismissal of these petitions is significant for several reasons. First, it reaffirms the reluctance of constitutional courts to intervene in ongoing criminal investigations unless there is a clear demonstration of or . The court's insistence that individual allegations of misconduct must be examined in the proceedings of each specific case, rather than through a wholesale , underscores the principle that extraordinary relief under is not a substitute for .
Second, the observation regarding "" is likely to have a chilling effect on public interest litigation that seeks to weaponise criminal law against political opponents. The court's careful avoidance of making findings on the subjective motives of the petitioners does not detract from the clear message that selective targeting based on partisan considerations will not find favour with the judiciary.
Third, for legal professionals representing victims of communal violence or police excesses, the judgment serves as a reminder that the threshold for obtaining a court-monitored SIT or independent probe is extremely high. The fact that the investigations have progressed over six years and that hundreds of charge sheets have been filed weighed heavily against the petitioners. Future litigants will need to present compelling evidence of a demonstrable link between police misconduct and investigative failure to meet that threshold.
The Jamia-related petitions suffered a similar fate, with the court noting that no fresh material had been placed before it subsequent to the filing of the petitions to show continuing or systemic violations of statutory safeguards. The 's assertion that CCTV footage had been preserved was also apparently accepted.
Conclusion
The 's rulings bring a decisive end to a long-running legal battle that sought to hold politicians and police officers accountable through . While the court left the door open for individuals to file appropriate applications under or to raise specific violations in individual criminal proceedings, it firmly declined to order a or to disturb the ongoing criminal justice process. The detailed judgments awaited will likely provide further insight into the court's reasoning, but for now, the 2020 Delhi riots and the 2019 Jamia violence remain matters for the regular criminal courts to determine—case by case, and without the overarching narrative that the petitioners sought to establish.
