Delhi High Court Flags 'Political Selectivity' In Pleas Seeking FIR Against Politicians Over Alleged Hate Speeches During Delhi Riots

The Delhi High Court on Monday (October 5) said that there were elements of “political selectivity” in pleas seeking FIR registration against various politicians, including BJP leaders Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma for alleged hate speeches in connection with the 2020 Delhi Riots. 

The court said this while dismissing a batch of petitions seeking SIT or independent investigation into the 2020 North East Delhi riots and 2019 violence which broke out in Jamia Milia Islamia University. It also rejected a plea seeking FIR against politicians for “hate speeches” and action against erring police officers.

The pleas sought registration of FIR against Thakur, Verma, and other political leaders namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Manish Sisodia, Amanatullah Khan, Akbaruddin Owaisi and Kapil Mishra.

A division bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain in its order said that there were no exceptional circumstance warranting registration of criminal cases.

“The record before us does indicate an element of political selectivity in the manner in which certain individuals and particular speeches have been targeted for action by respective petitioners. The Court, however, does not find it necessary to record any finding on the subjective motive of the petitioners at this stage,” the Court said while dismissing pleas, including the one filed by Brinda Karat.

The Court observed that in several instances, only portions or excerpts of the purported speeches were placed on record by the petitioners.

It added that the completeness and authenticity of the speeches were not established and the context in which such statements were made is 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.

The Court said that it cannot be overlooked that the petitions were pending for more than six years during which the criminal justice process has significantly progressed as noticed earlier.

“The criminal law has, thus, taken its own course and continues to operate through the ordinary judicial process,” it said.

On the petitioners' reliance on report of Delhi Minorities Commission, the Bench said that although the same cannot be disregarded merely because it is a fact-finding report, but it cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive determination of the culpability of any individual police officer or as establishing that the investigations conducted by the Delhi Police, as a whole, were tainted.

“A fact-finding report may undoubtedly constitute material warranting consideration by the investigating agency, however, the Court must be satisfied that the investigation is demonstrably tainted, biased or incapable of inspiring confidence. Tested against that standard, we are unable to treat the findings contained in the report, either independently or in conjunction with the other material placed before us, as sufficient to establish such pervasive or institutional infirmity in the investigation as would justify its displacement,” the Court said.

It further concluded that much of the material placed by the petitioners consisted of unauthenticated video recordings, newspaper clippings and excerpts from the print and electronic media, which were disputed by the Delhi Police.

It said that the allegations regarding non-compliance with Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 174 of the Cr.P.C. did not justify the relief sought as the safeguards contained in the provisions are mandatory and protect personal liberty and accountability in the exercise of police powers.

The Court said that any violation in an individual case can be examined in the proceedings relating to that case.

“Furthermore, more than six years have elapsed since the incidents in question. During this period, no fresh material has been placed before us, subsequent to the institution of these petitions, demonstrating any continuing or systemic violation of the aforesaid statutory safeguards. Nor have the petitioners brought to our notice any subsequent application or proceeding before the competent criminal courts in which such alleged violations have been specifically raised on the basis of fresh material or evidence,” the Court said.

It concluded that individual allegations concerning the legality of a particular arrest, failure to afford an individual statutory safeguard, non-production or delay in production before the Magistrate, or non-compliance with the requirements relating to inquest are matters which can be examined in the proceedings concerning the individual case and on the basis of evidence adduced therein.

“An allegation that police personnel committed misconduct in the course of the riots is not, by itself, an allegation that the subsequent investigation into the incidents was conducted improperly. The prayer for transfer of investigation can be justified only if there is material connecting the alleged misconduct to the investigative process in such a manner as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that a fair investigation cannot be undertaken by the existing authority. The present material does not establish such a connection,” the Bench concluded.

It added that allegations against some police personnel being engaged in the riots, even if assumed to be correct, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the entire investigative machinery of the Delhi Police is institutionally incapable of conducting a fair investigation.

While refusing SIT investigation into the commission of riots, the Court said that the reliefs sought extend beyond criminal investigation and includes a prayer for initiation of departmental and disciplinary proceedings against police officials.

It added that such proceedings are governed by the applicable statutory and service framework and ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the competent disciplinary authority.

“The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to supplant those statutory mechanisms by directing initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the absence of exceptional circumstances. This is not to suggest that police personnel enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution or departmental action. Wherever credible material discloses misconduct, dereliction of duty or commission of any criminal offence, it remains open to the competent authorities to proceed in accordance with law and for individuals, including the petitioners, to file appropriate application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C,” the Court said.

It held that ordering 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.