'Why Don't You Move Supreme Court?': High Court Asks Parties Seeking SIT Probe, FIRs Against Politicians Over Delhi Riots

The Delhi High Court on Friday listed for hearing on December 11, a batch of petitions seeking independent SIT investigation into the 2020 North East Delhi riots, registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches, and action against errant police officials.

A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain asked the parties as to why they cannot approach the Supreme Court and file an impleadment applications in a case pending there, which is based on same material and facts.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appearing for one of the petitioners, Shaikh Mujtaba, apprised the Court about the prayers- seeking registration of FIR against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma over alleged hate speeches which incited the riots and action against errant police personnel.

SPP Rajat Nair appeared for the Delhi Police and submitted that in a petition seeking similar prayers filed by Brinda Karat, who is also a petitioner in the batch, the magistrate had dismissed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the appeal against which was dismissed by the single judge of the High Court.

Nair told Court that SLP against the High Court's order is pending before the Supreme Court and that all the prayers sought in the batch are covered in the plea pending there.

On this, the Bench suggested to Gonsalves that it would be appropriate for the parties to move the Supreme Court and file impleadment applications there.

“Because it is the same relief, based on same material. Why two hearings on same matter? You can be impleaded there and argue and raise it there,” Justice Chaudhary remarked.

“These are PILs. There cannot be separate orders regarding same facts and incidents in different petitions. If in one set of petitions on same facts, already an order is passed and now matter is pending before Supreme Court, should other PILs be entertained here? In a PIL, Court after looking into everything passes an order. The moment it is a PIL, Court is no more bound by technicalities. If the Court has passed an order, why in other PILs separate orders be passed? Second aspect is you feel anything about SIT, then that you can at this stage, why cannot that be raised in Supreme Court? Now you can file application in Supreme Court,” the judge added.

Gonsalves responded that since the prayer sought is for SIT investigation involving officers outside the State, such a relief can only be granted by the constitutional court.

The Court asked Gonsalves to file material, involving details of Section 156(3) of CrPC proceedings, for clarity on the history of litigation.

The batch will now be heard on December 11.

One of the pleas has been filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, seeking an impartial investigation into the cases by a Special Investigation Team, headed by a retired Supreme Court or Delhi High Court judge. It is demanded that members of the Delhi Police shall be excluded from this SIT.

The petition filed by Lawyers Voice makes similar allegations against several other politicians. 

The petition moved by Ajay Gautam has asked for National Investigation Agency to investigate the funding and sponsoring of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Petitioner had also claimed that these protests are allegedly funded by PFI, which as per him is an anti-national organization, and the same are supported by political parties such as Congress and Aam Aadmi Party.

In addition to these claims, the Petitioner had also asked for FIR to be registered against political leaders such as Waris Pathan, Asaduddin Owaisi and Salman Khurshid, for allegedly making inflammatory and hate speeches.

The petition filed by Brinda Karat seeks independent investigation into the complaints alleging acts, offences and atrocities by members of the police, RAF or state functionaries in relation to the riots. 

In December 2021, the Supreme Court had asked the Delhi High Court to decide expeditiously, preferably within three month one of the petitions seeking FIR and investigation against politicians.

Case Title: Ajay Gautam v. GNCTD and other connected pleas