While refusing to transfer the investigation into the 2020 North-East Delhi riots to an independent agency or constitute a Special Investigation Team, the Delhi High Court has held that there was no specific material to show that any senior police officer or supervisory authority had compromised, influenced or interfered with the investigations.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain observed that while allegations of misconduct were against police personnel deployed during the riots, there was no specific allegation that any senior police or supervisory officer had directed, facilitated or participated in such acts, or subsequently exercised influence over the investigation.

“No specific material has been placed before us to demonstrate that an Investigating Officer, senior police officer or supervisory authority entrusted with the investigation was himself implicated in the alleged acts complained of, had a personal interest in shielding any police personnel, or had acted so as to compromise the investigation,” the Court said.

“The 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,” it added.

It observed that 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 Bench said that transfer of an investigation could be justified only where there was material connecting the alleged police misconduct with the investigative process in a manner giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that a fair investigation could not be undertaken by the existing authority.

It made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking transfer of the investigation to an independent agency or constitution of an SIT comprising officers unconnected with the Delhi Police.

The petitioners had alleged police inaction, failure to register complaints, improper investigation and, in some cases, active participation of police personnel in the violence.

They relied upon victim accounts, videos, photographs, fact-finding reports and the Delhi Minorities Commission's report to contend that the investigation was selective and did not inspire confidence.

The Court, however, held that the material placed before it did not establish that the investigative machinery of the Delhi Police had been institutionally compromised.

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

The Court also considered allegations of non-compliance with statutory safeguards concerning arrest, detention, production before Magistrates and inquest proceedings.

It held that the material did not establish any systemic violation of the safeguards under Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 174 of the CrPC warranting transfer of the entire investigation.

“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,” the Court said.

Holding that no exceptional circumstance was established, the Court rejected the prayer for constitution of an SIT, transfer of investigation to an independent agency or court-monitored investigation.

It however clarified that action in any individual case would remain open where the facts and material so warrant.