The Delhi High Court warned the Delhi Police that it may order a Central Bureau of Investigation probe, stating the court would not let the matter go and could no longer trust the ongoing investigation, its police conduct.
The Delhi High Court cautioned the Delhi Police that it may direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into claims of illegal detention and torture allegedly carried out against students and activists by the police last month.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja reviewed the Delhi Police’s sealed-cover reports and noted dissatisfaction with what had been submitted.
The Bench remarked that the allegations of torture against police personnel were serious and that the police’s actions so far did not inspire confidence.
The Bench said,
“We will not let it go. We might refer the investigation to CBI now. We are almost going there.
While examining the status reports submitted by the Delhi Police in a sealed cover concerning the CCTV cameras at the Special Cell office, the Court observed that it would describe the allegations as serious and seek a CBI investigation into the matter.
The court added,
“You are forcing us to do that….We will say we cannot trust you with the investigation,”
Further Noted that the Delhi Police’s conduct so far does not inspire confidence.
It further stated that the seriousness of the allegations against the activist could not be used to justify failure to follow due legal procedure.
Highlighting procedural safeguards, the Bench observed,
“When someone makes an allegation against someone, will you just go pick her up? We are not going to allow this. If you had some material to suspect them, there is a procedure prescribed in the law that you have to follow. If the procedure was not followed, we will direct the commissioner to conduct an inquiry. We are conveying it to you. We are not concerned how grave the allegation was… Constitution says procedure prescribed by law, we want to see the procedure followed,”
During the hearing, the court was informed through another sealed-cover report regarding the status of the CCTV cameras at the Delhi Police Special Cell office where the students were reportedly taken.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John represented some of the students and argued that the conduct of the police should be viewed seriously. She also submitted that the CCTV footage from the Special Cell is crucial, as it would indicate how long the students were kept there.
Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the Delhi Police and denied the allegations of torture. He told the court that the FIR had not been uploaded or shared with the accused due to directions from the competent authority.
Bhandari also rejected claims that the police had threatened activists over phone calls or pressured doctors not to conduct medical examinations. He assured the Bench that the matter was being taken seriously and that, if an investigation were ordered, it would be conducted under the supervision of a senior officer.
Concluding its proceedings, the Bench recorded that it was not satisfied with the status report filed by the police in sealed cover and directed the police to produce the complete case file before the court.
The Bench listed the matter for further hearing on May 19.
The Court was dealing with a set of habeas corpus petitions filed by the activists. In earlier proceedings, the Bench had orally directed the Delhi Police to adhere to the procedure laid down in law while conducting the investigation.
During today’s hearing, Delhi Police counsel, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Sanjeev Bhandari, submitted that the claims of torture and alleged threats made against the activists were false. He stated that the matter was being treated seriously and that, if any inquiry became necessary, it would be conducted at a senior level.
The Court then directed the Delhi Police to place the entire case file on record. The file will be examined on the next date of hearing.
Earlier, the High Court had ordered the preservation of CCTV footage from the areas where the students were allegedly detained. However, the Court was subsequently informed that the CCTV systems at two locations were not functioning.