Back
Dismisses Pleas for Independent Probe into Riots and Jamia Violence
The on Monday delivered a significant verdict, dismissing a consolidated batch of petitions that sought independent investigations into the North-East Delhi riots and the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia University. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain also rejected pleas demanding the against political leaders for alleged and action against police officials accused of . Pronouncing the judgment, the Bench stated, “For the reasons mentioned in the judgments, both the petitions (batch) are dismissed.” The detailed judgments are awaited, leaving the legal community to parse the rationale behind the court’s refusal to order a fresh probe into two of the most contentious episodes of civil unrest in recent Indian history.
A Long-Pending Legal Challenge
The petitions, filed as early as , had languished before the High Court for over three years. The had twice urged the High Court to expedite the matter—first in , asking for a decision within three months on one petition, and again in , noting the prolonged pendency. The batch encompassed a wide array of grievances, all stemming from the violence that erupted during the protests. The North-East Delhi riots, which claimed at least 53 lives and injured hundreds, were preceded by inflammatory speeches and escalating communal tensions. Meanwhile, the Jamia Millia Islamia incident in involved allegations of excessive force by against students protesting the CAA, resulting in serious injuries including fractures and loss of vision.
The petitions before the High Court sought directions for a , a , or a independent of the . They also demanded medical treatment and compensation for victims, against politicians for , and action against police personnel for alleged misconduct. The court’s dismissal marks the end of this particular avenue of litigation, though the detailed reasoning—yet to be released—will be closely scrutinized.
Petitions Seeking Accountability
Among the most prominent pleas was one filed by Shaikh Mujtaba, who sought FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma. The petition alleged that their speeches incited the anti-Muslim violence that swept through North-East Delhi. Another petition, filed by Lawyers Voice—a society of lawyers—targeted a broader array of opposition figures, including Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, AIMIM leader Akbaruddin Owaisi, and former AIMIM MLA Waris Pathan, among others.
CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat had approached the High Court seeking an independent investigation into complaints of offences and atrocities committed by members of the , the , and other state functionaries during the riots. Separately, activist Ajay Gautam sought an probe into alleged foreign funding and an “international conspiracy” behind the anti-CAA protests, along with FIRs against political leaders including Asaduddin Owaisi and Salman Khurshid for alleged inflammatory speeches.
The Jamia-related petitions were led by law student Nabila Hasan, who had previously approached the . The NHRC, in its report, described the protest as an “” that invited police action. The petitioners sought from the to an independent agency, citing bias and lack of accountability.
The Court’s Verdict: A Brief Pronouncement
The Division Bench’s oral pronouncement was succinct: “For the reasons mentioned in the judgments, both the petitions (batch) are dismissed.” The court clarified that the batch was decided in two parts—one concerning the North-East Delhi riots and the other relating to the Jamia violence. The judgments themselves are yet to be uploaded, but the bench had reserved its verdict on , after hearing extensive arguments.
The had opposed the petitions vigorously, arguing that investigations into the riots had not established that political leaders instigated or participated in the violence. It also pointed to existing legal remedies available against police inaction and contended that the prayer for in the Jamia cases introduced a fresh cause of action beyond the scope of the original petitions. The police further assured the court that CCTV footage from cameras inside and outside Jamia Millia Islamia and the New Friends Colony area had been collected “well in time” and “duly preserved.”
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
The dismissal of these petitions carries significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding and the standard for ordering independent investigations. The High Court’s decision suggests that it was not persuaded that the existing investigations by the and other agencies were inadequate or biased, at least to the extent of warranting a court-monitored SIT or transfer of cases. The detailed judgments are expected to shed light on the bench’s assessment of the allegations of hate speech, police excesses, and the sufficiency of the current investigative machinery.
For the petitioners, the option to appeal to the remains open. The Apex Court had previously shown interest in the expeditious disposal of these matters, and its earlier directions to the High Court indicate that it may have been inclined to scrutinize the issues more closely. However, the High Court’s dismissal—especially if based on substantive reasoning rather than procedural grounds—could present a formidable hurdle for any future challenge.
From a broader perspective, the verdict underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to substitute its own investigative mechanisms for those of the executive, unless a clear case of or is demonstrated. Legal professionals will be watching for the release of the detailed judgments to understand the court’s analysis of the evidentiary basis for the alleged and police misconduct. The case also highlights the challenges of litigating mass violence incidents where multiple actors and overlapping jurisdictions are involved.
Conclusion
The ’s dismissal of the batch of petitions brings a long-running legal battle to a close, at least at this stage. While the detailed reasoning remains under wraps, the oral pronouncement makes clear that the court found no grounds to order an independent SIT probe or direct the against political leaders. For the victims of the riots and the Jamia violence, the judgment may feel like a setback, but the legal process is far from over. The release of the detailed judgments will provide crucial insights into the court’s perspective on the role of the judiciary in overseeing investigations into large-scale civil unrest. Until then, the debate over accountability and justice for the events of 2019 and will continue to reverberate through India’s legal corridors.
