Court finds no exceptional circumstances to warrant further judicial intervention; existing statutory remedies deemed sufficient.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions concerning the Delhi riots of February 2020. The petitions sought directions for the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against individuals accused of delivering inflammatory speeches, the transfer of investigations to an independent agency or the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), preservation of electronic evidence, and further compensation and rehabilitation for riot victims.
The bench, comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, found that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to supplant the established statutory criminal procedures. The court emphasized that the statutory remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provide comprehensive mechanisms for addressing grievances related to non-registration of FIRs and improper investigations.
The judgment noted that more than six years have passed since the riots, during which 757 cases were registered, with substantial progress in investigations and prosecutions. The court observed that charge-sheets have been filed in many cases, resulting in convictions, acquittals, and ongoing trials, thereby indicating that the criminal justice process has taken its course.
The bench also declined to issue directions for the preservation of CCTV and electronic evidence, stating that such issues fall within the jurisdiction of competent criminal courts. Furthermore, the court held that the existing mechanism for compensation and rehabilitation, including the appointment of a Claims Commissioner, had been substantially acted upon, rendering further general directions unnecessary.
While dismissing the petitions, the court clarified that individuals are at liberty to pursue remedies available under the law if their specific circumstances warrant it. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and exercising judicial restraint in matters where comprehensive legal frameworks already exist.
Bottom Line :
Delhi riots, 2020 - Writ petitions seeking registration of FIRs for alleged hate speeches, transfer of investigation to independent agency/SIT, preservation of CCTV/electronic evidence and further compensation/rehabilitation - Held, in view of availability of statutory remedies, substantial progress of investigation and trials, and law laid down in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, no exceptional case made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - No direction for registration of FIRs, no SIT/transfer of investigation, no general direction for preservation of evidence, and no further general directions for compensation and rehabilitation.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 154(3), 156(3), 200, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2990828
