Today(on 16th July), Delhi High Court Judge Amit Sharma has recused himself from hearing a batch of petitions related to the Jamia Millia Islamia violence during the anti-CAA protests. The cases have been reassigned to a division bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh following Judge Sharma’s decision.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 16th July), Delhi High Court Judge Amit Sharma has recused himself from a significant batch of petitions linked to the violence that erupted at Jamia Millia Islamia during the anti-CAA protests in December 2019. This decision was made, prompting the reallocation of the cases to a different bench.
Following the change in the judicial roster, the cases were scheduled to be heard by a division bench led by Justice Prathiba M Singh.
Justice Singh remarked-
“Schedule for hearing before a different bench, excluding Justice Amit Sharma, on August 8th.”
The petitions, numerous and varied, were filed shortly after the violence ensued. They called for the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), a Commission of Inquiry (CoI), or a fact-finding committee to look into the events. Additionally, the petitions sought medical treatment for the injured, compensation grants, and the registration of FIRs against the police officers alleged to have been involved in the brutality.
The petitioners comprise lawyers, students of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI), residents of the Okhla area in South Delhi, where the university is situated, and the Imam of Jama Masjid mosque opposite Parliament. These petitioners have argued for the formation of an independent SIT, free from police or central government influence, to investigate the alleged police brutality against the students. They emphasized that such a step would “reassure the public” and restore faith in the justice system.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Plea Challenging Minority Status of Jamia Milia Islamia Withdrawn
The police have opposed these petitions, contending that the reliefs sought cannot be granted as charge sheets have already been filed regarding the violence cases. They argued that the petitioners should have pursued their reliefs before the concerned subordinate court.
According to the police, the student agitation was used as a cover by some individuals, with local support, to deliberately incite violence in the area. A comprehensive investigation into several FIRs was conducted by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police.
The police have labeled the petitioners as “interlopers,” accusing local politicians of exploiting the protests at JMI as a “facade” to attack the police and provoke violence. They strongly opposed the establishment of an SIT to investigate the alleged police atrocities and the transfer of FIRs against students to an independent agency. They argued that a “stranger” cannot request a judicial inquiry or investigation by a third-party agency.
Furthermore, the police asserted that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitioners should not be allowed to select members of the SIT responsible for investigating and prosecuting any alleged offences.
