Delhi high court rejects plea for FIRs against Gandhis, Anurag Thakur in 2020 riots case for alleged hate speech

The petitions alleged that the investigating agency’s continued failure to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused reflected “political selectivity”.

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed petitions seeking first information reports (FIR) against various political leaders for alleged hate speeches that purportedly incited the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, which claimed over 50 lives. Noting, what it said was, an element of “political selectivity” in putting records before it, the court said it found no exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of its jurisdiction to issue such a direction.

No ‘political selectivity’ in accused

In its verdict, the High Court also rejected the plea seeking transfer of the investigation from the Delhi Police to an independent agency or constitute an SIT. (PTI/ Representational)

In a 38-page verdict, a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain observed that “We find no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to direct registration of further FIRs, constitute an independent investigative mechanism, order wholesale further investigation into allegations against police officials, issue additional blanket directions regarding preservation of evidence, or grant further general directions relating to compensation and rehabilitation... Accordingly, the writ petitions, together with all pending applications, stand dismissed.”

They were hearing petitions seeking criminal action against BJP MP Anurag Thakur, Delhi government ministers Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma, and opposition leaders including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Manish Sisodia, and Akbaruddin Owaisi by petitioners including CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, and Lawyers Voice, among others.

“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 bench further observed that, of the material relied upon by the petitioners, only portions or excerpts of the alleged speeches had been placed on record.

“The completeness and authenticity of those speeches have not been established before us, and the context in which such statements have been 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,” said the order.

It added that the petitions had been pending for more than six years and the criminal law during this period, has significantly progressed and taken its own course.

The petitions alleged that the investigating agency’s continued failure to initiate criminal proceedings against the concerned individuals reflected a selective and discriminatory approach in the discharge of its statutory duties.

Refusal to shift investigation from Delhi Police

The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General SV Raju along with special public prosecutor Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande, submitted that the petitions selectively targeted identified political and public figures belonging to different parties and groups. The law officer argued that the petitions were politically motivated and sought to invoke the court’s jurisdiction against specific individuals while overlooking the broader factual and legal context surrounding the incidents.

In its verdict, the court also rejected the plea seeking transfer of the investigation to an independent agency or the constitution of a Special Investigation Team comprising officers not associated with the Delhi Police. The court observed that ordering a wholesale transfer of investigations or directing a roving inquiry into the conduct of police officials at this stage could have a bearing on several criminal proceedings currently pending before courts exercising jurisdiction over the respective matters.

“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,” the bench said.