Delhi Riots: High Court Questions Parallel PILs, Urges Petitioners to Approach Supreme Court

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has raised significant questions of judicial propriety and procedural economy in a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking an independent probe into the 2020 North East Delhi riots and the registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches. A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain strongly suggested that the petitioners should approach the Supreme Court, where a related matter is already pending, to avoid duplicative proceedings on the same set of facts.

The court's observations came during a hearing where it listed the petitions for further consideration on December 11. The bench directed the petitioners' counsel to furnish a detailed history of the litigation, including proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to gain a clearer picture before proceeding.

---

The Core of the Controversy: Parallel Proceedings

At the heart of Friday's hearing was the court's reluctance to entertain multiple PILs that mirror the reliefs and factual matrix of a case already before the nation's apex court. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajat Nair, representing the Delhi Police, informed the bench that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is currently pending before the Supreme Court. This SLP was filed against a Delhi High Court single-judge order that had upheld a Magistrate's dismissal of a similar plea filed by petitioner Brinda Karat under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Nair argued that the prayers sought in the entire batch of petitions before the division bench are substantially covered by the plea pending in the Supreme Court. Seizing on this point, the bench questioned the rationale behind conducting parallel hearings.

“Because it is the same relief, based on same material. Why two hearings on same matter? You can be impleaded there and argue and raise it there,” Justice Chaudhary remarked, addressing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for petitioner Shaikh Mujtaba.

The bench emphasized the unique nature of PILs, where the court takes a holistic view beyond technical procedural rules. “These are PILs. There cannot be separate orders regarding same facts and incidents in different petitions... If the Court has passed an order, why in other PILs separate orders be passed?” the court posited. The bench advised Gonsalves that an impleadment application in the pending Supreme Court matter would be the more appropriate course of action, allowing all arguments, including the demand for a Special Investigation Team (SIT), to be raised before a single, and the highest, judicial forum.

Arguments for High Court's Jurisdiction

Responding to the court’s suggestion, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves contended that the petitioners were seeking relief that a constitutional court, such as the High Court, is uniquely empowered to grant. He highlighted that a primary prayer is the formation of an SIT comprising officers from outside Delhi, a remedy he argued was best adjudicated by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

Gonsalves also outlined the specific prayers of his client, which include the registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma for alleged hate speeches that purportedly incited the riots. The petitions also seek accountability and action against police personnel who were allegedly complicit or derelict in their duties during the violence.

The bench, while acknowledging the arguments, remained focused on the procedural overlap and asked Gonsalves to submit materials detailing the history of the Section 156(3) CrPC proceedings to better understand the litigation trail leading up to the current hearings.

A Diverse Batch of Petitions

The matters before the High Court represent a wide array of concerns stemming from the February 2020 riots. The key petitions include:

• Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind: This plea seeks an impartial investigation by an SIT headed by a retired Supreme Court or Delhi High Court judge, with a specific demand to exclude any members of the Delhi Police from the team.
• Shaikh Mujtaba & Brinda Karat: These petitions focus on registering FIRs against political figures for hate speech and call for an independent investigation into the role of police officials during the riots.
• Ajay Gautam: This petition takes a different angle, seeking an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the alleged funding of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The plea alleges that these protests were sponsored by organizations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) with support from political parties, and demands FIRs against leaders such as Waris Pathan, Asaduddin Owaisi, and Salman Khurshid for allegedly inflammatory speeches.
• Lawyers Voice: This petition makes similar allegations of hate speech against several other political figures.

Legal and Procedural Implications

The High Court's stance underscores a crucial principle of judicial economy: the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings. Allowing parallel litigation on identical issues before different forums can lead to conflicting orders, wastage of judicial time, and procedural chaos. By directing the parties toward the Supreme Court, the High Court appears to favor a consolidated approach where all related grievances can be addressed comprehensively.

However, this direction is layered with complexity. In December 2021, the Supreme Court itself had tasked the Delhi High Court with expeditiously deciding one of the petitions, preferably within three months. The High Court's current suggestion to return to the apex court, nearly two years after that directive, could be interpreted as a judicial expression of the need for a final, consolidated resolution that only the Supreme Court can provide, especially since an SLP is already pending there.

For legal practitioners, this development serves as a reminder of the strategic importance of choosing the correct forum and the courts' increasing intolerance for potentially overlapping or piecemeal litigation, particularly in high-profile PILs. The final decision on the forum will significantly shape the trajectory of the quest for accountability and justice for the 2020 Delhi riots.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 11, when the court will review the submitted litigation history and determine the path forward for these crucial petitions.