The Delhi High Court recently raised serious concerns over a batch of petitions seeking FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots and demanding an independent investigation into the violence. The division bench, consisting of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, questioned why the petitioners were not instead intervening in a Supreme Court case already pending on essentially the same facts and seeking identical reliefs. The court noted that having parallel proceedings in different forums risked duplicating judicial efforts and undermined the coherence of the legal process.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for one of the petitioners, Shaikh Mujtaba, outlined their demands, which included FIRs against prominent political figures such as Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma. He also pressed for action against police officers allegedly complicit in the riots, and for a court-monitored investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT). However, the court pointed out that a similar matter was already before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP), and suggested that the petitioners file an impleadment application there instead of seeking separate relief from the High Court. According to the judges, since the demands in both forums were based on the same core material, it would be more efficient and consistent for the parties to present their case before the Supreme Court.
When Gonsalves argued that their request for an SIT probe — specifically one led by a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge and excluding serving Delhi Police officers — could only be granted by a constitutional court, the bench reiterated that joining the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings would provide an appropriate platform. The court directed the petitioners to submit detailed documentation, including the history of their attempts under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to clarify the procedural backdrop. The court scheduled the next hearing for December 11.
Among those petitioning are Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, which seeks a separate, independent inquiry conducted by a retired judge, and Lawyers Voice, which has named a range of political leaders and alleged they made incendiary statements that fueled the riots. Another petitioner, Ajay Gautam, has urged that the National Investigation Agency investigate alleged funding for anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests, claiming that some of these protests received support from political parties.
The High Court also stressed that FIRs in relation to the riots are already on record and that investigations are underway. It expressed concern that despite being aware of alternative legal remedies — such as challenging investigation quality before a magistrate — the petitioners had not pursued them. The court underscored that certain factual issues related to the investigation should properly be addressed in a criminal court rather than through writ petitions in the High Court. It made clear that if the petitioners were dissatisfied with the police investigation, they could withdraw their writ petitions and redirect their claims to the trial court, where factual supervision is better suited.
Given these observations, the High Court’s inclination strongly leaned towards encouraging a unified resolution of overlapping litigation through the Supreme Court rather than entertaining distinct, multiplicative High Court proceedings on the same subject matter.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.