Delhi Riots Probe: High Court Questions SIT Demand, Seeks Police Status Report

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court on Tuesday revisited a series of contentious petitions concerning the 2020 North East Delhi riots, signalling a critical examination of the pleas for an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the registration of FIRs against political figures for alleged hate speeches. A division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, while scheduling the matter for November 21, directed the Delhi Police to submit a comprehensive status report on its ongoing investigations.

The hearing brought to the forefront the long-standing legal battle over the handling of the riots' aftermath, pitting petitioners' demands for an impartial probe against the court's scrutiny of its own writ jurisdiction in matters of criminal investigation.

The Core Contentions: A Multi-faceted Legal Challenge

The batch of petitions, including a prominent plea by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, seeks a court-monitored investigation into the violence, which claimed over 50 lives and left hundreds injured. The central demand is the constitution of an SIT, headed by a retired judge from the Supreme Court or Delhi High Court, with a specific condition that members of the Delhi Police be excluded from it. This plea stems from deep-seated allegations of bias and inaction against the city's police force during the riots.

Another set of petitions, filed by individuals like Shaikh Mujtaba and Brinda Karat, specifically targets political leaders. They seek the registration of FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma for allegedly delivering inflammatory speeches that precipitated the violence. Similar allegations have been made by the petitioner 'Lawyers Voice' against other political figures, including Waris Pathan and Asaduddin Owaisi. The pleas also demand investigation into the role of and action against police personnel who allegedly failed in their duties or were complicit in the violence.

Adding another layer to the complex litigation, a petition by Ajay Gautam has called for a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into the alleged funding of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which preceded the riots. The plea claims these protests were sponsored by organizations like the Popular Front of India (PFI) with support from political parties, thereby linking the riots to a larger conspiracy.

Judicial Scrutiny and the Question of Alternate Remedies

During Tuesday's hearing, the bench expressed pointed skepticism about its role in directly supervising the investigation, particularly when statutory remedies are available. As counsel for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind argued that the Delhi Police's investigation was unfair and necessitated an independent probe, the bench countered by highlighting the established legal framework.

Justice Vivek Chaudhary orally remarked, “FIRs have already been registered. The police is already investigating. Nothing remains in this.” When the counsel pressed the argument of a biased investigation, the judge provided a clear direction towards the subordinate judiciary.

“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,” stated Justice Chaudhary.

This judicial observation goes to the heart of a recurring debate in constitutional and criminal law: the appropriate scope of a High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternative and efficacious remedy exists under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The bench's comments suggest a preference for the established hierarchy of judicial supervision, where the concerned magistrate's court serves as the primary forum for overseeing police investigations.

The court further noted the extensive delay in the proceedings, remarking, “In the last six to seven years, despite there being an alternate remedy, you have not availed…The petitions are pending for so long without any reason.” This observation also brings into focus a December 2021 directive from the Supreme Court, which had asked the Delhi High Court to decide one of the key petitions—seeking FIRs against politicians—expeditiously, preferably within three months. The continued pendency of the matter remains a significant issue.

The Path Forward: A Crucial Status Report

Despite its reservations, the court has not dismissed the petitions. Instead, it has adopted a pragmatic approach by calling for a status report from the Delhi Police. Counsel Dhruv Pande, representing the police, has been tasked with providing an update on the investigation, including the total number of FIRs registered in connection with the riots.

This report will be a critical document, likely influencing the court's future course of action. It will provide a factual baseline for the bench to assess the progress and fairness of the current probe. For the petitioners, the report will be a key piece of evidence to either substantiate or challenge their claims of a tardy or prejudiced investigation.

The outcome of this batch of petitions holds significant implications. A decision to order an SIT would be a major judicial intervention, signaling a lack of confidence in the primary investigating agency. Conversely, a refusal to intervene, directing petitioners to the magistrate's court, would reinforce the standard procedural pathway for challenging police investigations and could potentially make it more difficult to secure High Court-monitored probes in similar future cases.

As the legal community awaits the hearing on November 21, the proceedings in Ajay Gautam v. GNCTD and other connected pleas will be closely watched for their potential to set a precedent on police accountability, judicial oversight, and the legal recourse available in the aftermath of large-scale civil unrest.