The Delhi High Court has said there is no material to show that senior police officers or the supervisory authority compromised the investigation into the 2020 North East Delhi riots, as it dismissed a batch of petitions seeking an SIT, a transfer of the probe and FIRs against speakers.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday held that allegations of misconduct by some police personnel during the 2020 North East Delhi riots do not, by themselves, show that the investigation was compromised, and dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking an independent agency or Special Investigation Team (SIT) for the probe [Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain pronounced the judgment, reserved on July 24, 2026. The reasoned judgment follows the operative order reported earlier on the day. The petitioners’ allegations, including those against police personnel and political leaders, have not been adjudicated, and the Court recorded no finding on them.
Background
The batch, which included petitions by Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq, Lawyers Voice, Deepak Madan, Ajay Gautam, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and Brinda Karat, had been pending since 2020. After stale reliefs were set aside, four prayers remained: registration of FIRs against persons accused of inflammatory speeches, transfer of the investigation to an independent agency or an SIT, preservation of evidence such as CCTV and electronic records, and compensation and rehabilitation. The petitioners alleged police inaction, complicity and selective investigation, and relied on victim accounts, videos, fact-finding reports and the report of the Delhi Minorities Commission.
Opposing the petitions, the Delhi Police and the Union contended that 757 FIRs had been registered, that charge-sheets had been filed in 369 of them, that no systemic failure was shown, that statutory remedies were available, and that the petitions were selective, politically motivated and stale. These are the respondents’ contentions.
Misconduct during riots is not misconduct in investigation
On the prayer for transfer of the probe, the Bench drew a distinction between allegations about what police personnel did during the riots and allegations about how the investigation was later conducted:
“An allegation that police personnel committed misconduct in the course of the riots is not, by itself, an allegation that the subsequent investigation into the incidents was conducted improperly. The prayer for transfer of investigation can be justified only if there is material connecting the alleged misconduct to the investigative process in such a manner as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that a fair investigation cannot be undertaken by the existing authority.”
Applying the standards laid down by the Supreme Court for transferring an investigation, which it described as an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional situations, the Court found no material that an Investigating Officer, a senior police officer or the supervisory authority was implicated, had a personal interest in shielding police personnel, or had acted so as to compromise the investigation. It said that allegations against some personnel, even if assumed to be correct, cannot lead to the conclusion that the entire investigative machinery is institutionally incapable of a fair investigation.
Arrest safeguards and the Minorities Commission report
The Bench acknowledged the mandatory nature of the safeguards under Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 174 of the CrPC, but held that no fresh material showed a systemic violation, and that lapses in individual cases are for examination in those proceedings. On the report of the Delhi Minorities Commission, it said such a report may warrant consideration by the investigating agency but that it was not enough to show an investigation that is demonstrably tainted or biased. It also noted that a wholesale transfer would affect numerous criminal proceedings pending before different courts.
FIRs, evidence and compensation
On FIRs against speakers, the Court noted that the material consisted of video recordings, newspaper clippings and excerpts whose completeness and authenticity were not established, and held that the statutory remedies under the CrPC, including Sections 154(3) and 156(3), remain available to individual complainants. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision of April 29, 2026 in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, it said writ jurisdiction in such cases is extraordinary and not to be invoked routinely.
It declined a general direction to preserve CCTV and electronic records, saying the apprehension of tampering was general and vague and no concrete instance had been shown. On compensation, it noted that a Claims Commissioner, a retired judge, had been appointed during the pendency of the petitions and held that no systemic failure was demonstrated. It also observed:
“Public interest litigation cannot be allowed to become a vehicle for pursuing matters that belong within the domain of criminal law.”
Directions
The writ petitions, together with all pending applications, were dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Court clarified:
“Despite the above conclusions, any individual, in the facts of his case, would always be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available under law.”
Why The Delhi High Court Judgment Matters
The judgment sets out the threshold the Court applied for displacing an existing investigating agency: material tying alleged misconduct to the investigative process itself, not allegations about conduct during the violence alone. It also leaves individual complainants and accused persons free to pursue remedies in their own cases. The Court’s conclusions concern the standard for transfer of investigation and writ relief; it made no finding on the underlying allegations made by any side.
Case Title: Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(CRL) 665/2020 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves and Kirti Uppal, Advocates Kirti Singh and M. Taiyab Khan, and Ajay Gautam (in person). For the Respondents: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.