New Delhi, Oct 5 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 of allegedly delivering hate speeches.
The court said the record indicates an element of "political selectivity" in the manner in which certain individuals and particular speeches have been targeted for action by respective petitioners.
Some of the pleas sought registration of 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 which form 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 there were no exceptional circumstances warranting registration of criminal cases.
It pointed out that in several instances, only portions or excerpts of the purported speeches were placed on record by the petitioners and 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.
The court said no case was made out for constituting an SIT, directing a court-monitored probe or transferring the investigation to any independent agency.
It said mere allegations against the police is not sufficient and there must be material indicating that the existing investigation is so compromised, tainted or lacking in credibility that intervention of a constitutional court becomes necessary.
"Directing a wholesale transfer of investigations or a roving enquiry
into the conduct of police officials at this stage would inevitably affect numerous criminal proceedings presently pending before different jurisdictional courts. Such a course would not only unsettle investigations and prosecutions that have substantially progressed over the last several years but may also prejudice victims, witnesses and accused persons alike," the bench said.
The court rejected the prayer for preservation of evidence, including CCTV footage and other electronic devices, saying no specific instance has been demonstrated that any record was destroyed or tampered with.
"The apprehension expressed by the petitioners is, therefore, of a general and vague nature and cannot in absence of any concrete material in any particular case furnish the basis for issuance of a general direction," it said.
Regarding the prayer for compensation and rehabilitation of victims, the court said no such general direction is warranted and a mechanism for assessment of individual claims was already put in place and compensation was awarded in large number of cases.
It said the petitioners have not demonstrated any systemic failure of the institutional mechanism, or that the absence of an effective legal framework has left any class of victims without a remedy.
The police earlier said they had already created three SITs under the crime branch, and there was no evidence that their officers were involved in the violence or that political leaders instigated or participated in it.
They said their probe prima facie revealed that it was not a case of any sporadic or spontaneous violence, but a well thought-out "conspiracy to destabilise the harmony in the society".
The police said they had registered 757 FIRs in connection with the riots and that investigation was pending in 273 cases and trial was pending in 250.
