Delhi HC rejects pleas for S.I.T. probe into 2019 Jamia clashes

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the 2019 clashes at Jamia Millia Islamia University during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), including allegations of police excesses, arbitrary use of force, and action by police personnel

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the 2019 clashes at Jamia Millia Islamia University during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), including allegations of police excesses, arbitrary use of force, and action by police personnel.

The court said the police entered only after the situation outside and around the university had escalated (Photo for representation)

A bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain observed that the police had not entered the university premises at the outset to deal with an otherwise peaceful assembly confined to the campus. The court said the police entered only after the situation outside and around the university had escalated and the crowd had moved into the campus.

The police intervention, therefore, has to be viewed in the “prevailing” law-and-order situation which had developed at that time, it said in its 48-page verdict.

“The NHRC, after examining the material placed before it, found that the protesters blocked traffic, damaged property and attacked the police with stones and other objects. The police attempted to push the protesters back. A number of protesters thereafter entered the University campus, following which the police also entered the campus. Thus, the police did not enter the University premises at the outset to deal with an otherwise peaceful assembly confined to the campus,” the court said.

In its verdict, the court observed that the case did not involve a situation where the State machinery had remained wholly inactive, no investigation had been conducted, allegations had been ignored by statutory authorities, or the petitioners had been denied access to legal remedies. It said that the incidents took place in December 2019 and more than six years had since elapsed and during this period, criminal proceedings had progressed before competent courts. Ordering a fresh inquiry at this stage would necessarily involve re-examining events and material that had already formed part of statutory and judicial proceedings, the court said.

It added that once a gathering ceases to remain peaceful and the circumstances disclose violence, commission of cognizable offences or a threat to life or property, the police cannot be expected to remain inactive or as mute spectator merely because the gathering is taking place within a university campus.

“A university is a place of learning and academic activity, and this crucial aspect must always be kept in mind while exercising police powers. That consideration cannot, however, be taken to mean that the police are prohibited from entering a University campus in all circumstances. Where the situation requires immediate intervention, the police cannot be expected to remain outside merely because the premises belong to an educational institution.”

The petitions by the students of the university, argued by senior advocates Indira Jaising and Colin Gonsalves, also sought compensation and regulation of police action during protests, asserting that several students suffered injuries and respiratory distress during the events of December 15, 2019, when police and paramilitary personnel allegedly entered the Jamia Millia Islamia campus at around 4 pm. It was their case that the campus was peaceful and no student protests or demonstrations were underway at the time, but force was used against students inside academic buildings, including the library, reading rooms and departmental premises, while tear gas was allegedly fired in enclosed spaces, causing panic, injuries and breathing difficulties.

The Delhi Police represented by additional solicitor general SV Raju along with advocate Dhruv Pande, had opposed the petitions asserting that the same had been instituted in the form of public interest litigation (PIL), and the reliefs sought therein essentially pertained to criminal investigation, registration of FIRs, prosecution of police officials and constitution of investigative bodies, which fell squarely within the realm of criminal law and could not be agitated through PIL jurisdiction. The law officer further submitted that FIRs had been registered in relation to the violence in 2019 and directing a parallel or fresh investigation into the same incidents at this stage would necessarily overlap with proceedings already pending before jurisdictional courts.

In its verdict, the court also rejected the prayer for compensation.“Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the disputed factual backdrop, the inquiry already conducted by the NHRC, the recommendations made therein regarding compensation, the failure of the petitioners to pursue the remedial measures contemplated by those recommendations, and the considerable passage of time, we do not consider this to be a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction for grant of compensation,” the court said.

Violence broke out near Jamia Milia Islamia University on December 13, 2019 when some 700-800 people were protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The police indicted 12 people, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.