Delhi HC rejects SIT probe into 2020 Delhi riots

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to order an SIT probe into the 2020 northeast Delhi riots while making it clear that no case was made out against certain politicians, including BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma, for allegedly delivering hate speeches. 

The court said the record indicates an element of “political selectivity”in how certain individuals and particular speeches have been targeted for action by the respective petitioners. 
Some of the pleas sought registration of an FIR against Thakur, Verma, and other political leaders, namely Congress’ Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra; Manish Sisodia and Amanatullah Khan from AAP; AIMIM’s Akbaruddin Owaisi; and BJP’s Kapil Mishra.

A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain said it does not find it necessary to record any finding on the subjective motive of the petitioners at this stage.
The bench, which dismissed a batch of petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the 2020 riots, reiterated that the events forming the subject matter of the petitions were undoubtedly of “grave concern”.

“The violence that engulfed North-East Delhi resulted in the loss of precious human lives, displacement of families, destruction of public and private property and, therefore, there is legitimate public concern,”it said. A communal clash broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, amid citizenship law protests, leaving at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured. “To sum up, as on date, we find no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to direct registration of further FIRs, constitute an independent investigative mechanism, order wholesale further investigation into allegations against police officials, issue additional blanket directions regarding preservation of evidence, or grant further general directions relating to compensation and rehabilitation,”the bench said in its judgment.

The court said no exceptional circumstances warranted registering criminal cases.  It pointed out that, in several instances, only portions or excerpts of the purported speeches were placed on record by the petitioners; the completeness and authenticity of the speeches were not established, and the context in which such statements were made was also disputed.
“We, therefore, cannot proceed on the assumption that the material placed before us represents complete and accurate versions of the speeches or record a definitive finding of fact as to their contents or context,”the court said.

It said the complaints concerning inflammatory speeches, the grievance of police inaction and the recourse to statutory remedies constitute important features of the proceedings which ultimately travelled to the Supreme Court.

“No subsequent development has been brought to our notice which may warrant issuance of direction for registration of FIRs in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court,”it said.
The bench said it cannot be overlooked that the petitions were pending for more than six years during which the criminal justice process has significantly progressed. The criminal law has, thus, taken its own course and continues to operate through the ordinary judicial process, it said.