SC declines to intervene in probe into death of man in Delhi’s Uttam Nagar

The Supreme Court expressed reluctance to issue any directions, including transferring the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Delhi Police should make any necessary arrangements to ensure the safety of the family of the 26-year-old man, who was killed in West Delhi’s Uttam Nagar on March 4 following an altercation over a water balloon on Holi.

The Supreme Court said the Delhi Police could address concerns. (HT PHOTO)

The balloon hit a Muslim woman, which led to an altercation between the two families, resulting in injuries to at least eight people. Taran Kumar succumbed to his injuries a few days later. Fourteen people have been arrested, and two minors apprehended over the alleged murder. Inflammatory social media posts and provocative speeches over the incident triggered communal tensions.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi declined to intervene in the probe into the killing and directed the petitioner, Hari Shankar Jain, seeking its involvement to approach the Delhi Police and the high court.

Jain sought directions, including compensation and protection for Kumar’s family, and implementation of the court’s guidelines on preventing mob violence. His counsel, Vishnu Shankar Jain, referred to the court’s 2018 judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla versus Union of India, which listed steps for the state to prevent mob violence.

The bench expressed reluctance to issue any directions, including transferring the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). “Everyday CBI people come here and raise their hands and say their plate is full. The Delhi Police is a professional force. Why demoralise them? Yes, if police need to be sensitised etc, you can approach the commissioner of police first.”

The bench noted that several directions that the petitioner sought fall within the “administrative” domain. It said the Delhi Police could address concerns about the safety and security of Kumar’s family. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the police commissioner. It added that if the petitioner remained unsatisfied with the response, he could then approach the high court.

The bench said remedial measures will be taken if the police find a threat perception. “If not addressed, then the petitioner may move the Delhi high court.”

The petitioner claimed that Kumar’s killing was a planned act of communal violence and sought police protection for his family. He urged the Supreme Court to direct the state to award ₹5 crore compensation and sought implementation of the 2018 guidelines, arguing that had they been enforced, the incident would not have taken place.

In its 2018 judgement, the Supreme Court held that mob lynching and vigilantism constitute a direct assault on the rule of law and cannot be tolerated. It stressed that no individual or group can take the law into their own hands. The court issued binding directions, including appointing a nodal police officer in every district, identifying vulnerable areas and acting promptly against those spreading hate or inciting violence.

The court called for creating victim compensation schemes, ensuring time-bound investigation and trial through fast-track courts. It directed disciplinary action against officials who fail to act. The court urged the Parliament to consider enacting a separate law to address lynching, emphasising that unchecked mob violence risks becoming a “new normal” if the state fails to act decisively.