E-Paper
Take up Delhi riots matter on Friday, SC tells HC
Ten victims, who were affected by Delhi riots, approached the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs against BJP leaders under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences of hate speech, rioting, unlawful assembly, insulting religious beliefs, and murder.
The Delhi high court’s decision to adjourn a plea seeking registration of FIRs into incidents of hate speech before last week’s Delhi riots cannot be justified, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, directing the high court to hear the case on March 6 and urging it to explore the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
The top court also ordered that the petitions relating to Delhi violence, which were filed in the Supreme Court, be transmitted to the high court for hearing on March 6, along with other cases already pending before the Delhi high court on the same issue.
“Their prayer to hear the matter on time is justified,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde remarked, and also directed the high court to decide the case expeditiously.
Ten victims, who were affected by Delhi riots, approached the Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including offences of hate speech, rioting, unlawful assembly, insulting religious beliefs, and murder.
The petitioners said that activist Harsh Mander had filed a similar petition before the Delhi high court, but that was adjourned by the court for more than a month. Mander had also moved the top court against the order of the high court, which adjourned his plea for April 13.
The petitioners pointed out that videos involving the four BJP leaders, in which they were allegedly seen exhorting their followers against those protesting against the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), had gone viral on social media .
Senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, told the court on Wednesday that Mishra made provocative slogans on February 23, instigating the crowd to unleash violence against anti-CAA protestors. The Delhi communal riots, in which 47 people were killed, raged between February 23 and 25 as protests against CAA (by largely Muslim groups) and in favour of the legislation (by Hindu groups) erupted into violence.
“We did not understand the enormity of his statements then. With DCP (a deputy commissioner of police) standing beside him, he gave an ultimatum to clear the blockade within three days or else he will take things into his hands. And after that violence started,” Gonsalves argued.
Gonsalves said that similar speeches are now being made across the country.
“Such slogans were raised at Rajiv Chowk,” he said, referring to an incident of a mob raising “shoot the traitors” slogans at the Rajiv Chowk Metro station in central Delhi.
The court asked the solicitor general Tushar Mehta whether the situation was conducive for registration of FIRs against the leaders.
Mehta said that though riots have now subsided, registration of FIRs might affect the situation adversely. Hence, he submitted that the decision to register FIRs should be best left to the authorities who are in a position to take stock of the situation on the ground.
Mehta also informed the court that 467 FIRs had been registered against persons who had indulged in violence and rioting in the Capital, and that it was it was “fallacious to believe that one statement [by Kapil Mishra] would have led to riots.”
CJI Bobde concurred with the solicitor general and remarked that registration of FIR might, at times, have no practical effect and can sometimes even create an undesirable impact on law and order.
“During Bombay riots, when Shakha Pramukhs were arrested, violence flared up,” the CJI remarked.
The petitioners before the Supreme Court sought a special investigation team (SIT) comprising officers from outside Delhi to conduct an independent probe into the incident. Further, the petitioners prayed for an inquiry by a retired judge to identify and take action against police officials involved in rioting and criminal conduct. The petitioners also sought directions to ensure the safety of those who are protesting at various sites against CAA and to provide compensation to the families of those who have been killed or injured.
The petitioners also took an unfavourable view of the adjournment granted by Delhi high court.
“This practice of... entertaining life and death matters and adjourning them endlessly gives the appearance of entertainment of the grievances of the victim community but in reality it amounts to nothing,” the plea in the Supreme Court said.
