Tahir Hussain gets 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment in riots case

A Delhi court on Friday sentenced former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) municipal councillor Tahir Hussain to two years of rigorous imprisonment for abetting violence in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, emphasising that “the hand that guides is as guilty, if not more, as the hand that acts”

A Delhi court on Friday sentenced former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) municipal councillor Tahir Hussain to two years of rigorous imprisonment for abetting violence in a 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, emphasising that “the hand that guides is as guilty, if not more, as the hand that acts”.

Tahir Hussain gets 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment in riots case

Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Courts passed the order, sentencing Hussain under section 147 (rioting) read with section 109 (abetment of an offence) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also fined ₹10 lakh, specifying that if he defaults on the fine, he will undergo an additional simple imprisonment of 10 days.

This marks Hussain’s second conviction in connection with the in February 2020 riots, the first being in connection with the death of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma, where Hussain is undergoing a life sentence.

In this particular case, Delhi Police argued that Hussain’s multi-storey residence in Khajuri Khas served as a base for rioters, who eventually destroyed several properties in the area. On October 10, 2026, the court convicted Hussain for abetting the violence by enabling an unlawful assembly, noting that rioters had used the roof of his house to rain stones and launch attacks on the public and properties along the Main Karawal Nagar Road.

Two other complaints were subsequently clubbed with the case. Mohd. Zahid, who ran a bakery in the area, alleged that his shop was set on fire, while Gunjan Sachdeva, owner of Arora Furniture House, reported that his shop had been looted and torched.

The court in its order firmly dismissed defence arguments for leniency, the lack of direct participation in the mob, and claims of helplessness, stating that, “In the year 2020, the convict was an elected people’s representative. Meaning thereby, he was a leader of the people, whose words and actions would have had significant weight. By virtue of his position, in a communally charged environment, he had a responsibility to act towards maintenance of peace and harmony.”

The court said that he was, therefore, “expected to act as a restraining influence upon the people and not to facilitate their unlawful conduct.”

The judge further detailed how this duty was subverted. “However, instead of discharging this responsibility, the convict has been found to have abetted the riots by providing his house, which was the highest point in the locality, as a place from where the rioters could attack people and damage property”.

The court added, “Thus, a position which ought to have been used to prevent violence was, in the present case, found to have been used in a manner which facilitated it.”

Addressing claims that the absence of physical mob participation or direct intent reduced his culpability, the court ruled that facilitation inherently carries intent and equal guilt. “The mere fact that the prosecution did not prove the active participation of the convict in the riot, does not dilute the gravity of his conduct, for the hand that guides is as guilty, if not more, as the hand that acts.”

The court further observed, “The mere use of the expression ‘facilitation’ does not, by itself, negate the existence of the requisite intention”.

It said that “facilitation of an act cannot happen without an intention and intent is inherent in facilitation of any act or offence and thus, it cannot be accepted that the convict had not intended to aid the rioters and abetment was not intentional because he had merely facilitated them.”

The court concluded that the aggravating factors—including his record as a repeat offender and his status as a public servant—heavily outweighed any mitigating circumstances.

Hussain, however, will receive the benefit of section 428 of the CrPC, now Section 486 of BNSS, for time already served. The section allows an undertrial prisoner to set off the period of detention already undergone during investigation, inquiry, or trial against the final term of imprisonment awarded upon conviction.

The court in its conviction order specifically distinguished Hussain’s role in allowing the terrace to be used from direct participation in the attacks on shops.

It had said none of the witnesses had placed him in the mob or testified that he had abetted the rioters who vandalised, looted and set fire to the shops of complainants Irshad Ali, Mohd. Jahid and Gunjan Sachdeva, or that he had armed them with deadly weapons.

“However, as none of the witnesses have placed the accused in the mob, or have deposed about him abetting the rioters who had indulged in vandalism, loot and arson … I do not find that the prosecution has established the charges,” the court had said, acquitting him of the remaining charges.

The court had acquitted the nine co-accused named in its judgment — Mohd. Shadab, Hussain’s brother Shah Alam, Riyasat Ali, Gulfam, Rashid Saifi, Mohd. Rihan, Mohd. Abid, Arshad Qayyum and Irshad Ahmed — of all charges, citing the failure to establish their guilt. Hussain was represented by advocate Rajiv Mohan.