Delhi Riots Petitions Seek FIRs Against Political Leaders, SIT Probe and Action Against Police; Delhi High Court Refuses Fresh Intervention After Six Years and Dismisses Batch
Petitioners Allege Hate Speeches, Police Complicity and Evidence Concerns in 2020 North-East Delhi Riots; Delhi High Court Says Statutory Remedies and Ongoing Criminal Process Must Take Their Course
Facts
The batch comprised seven writ petitions arising from the communal violence that occurred in North-East Delhi in February 2020 in the backdrop of protests following enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed National Register of Citizens. The petitions were heard together because they arose from the same events and raised overlapping issues.
The petitions sought a wide range of directions, including registration of FIRs against various named political and public figures for alleged inflammatory or hate speeches, constitution of a Special Investigation Team or transfer of investigation to an independent agency, action against police personnel for alleged inaction or complicity, preservation of CCTV and electronic evidence, and compensation and rehabilitation for riot victims.
By the time of final hearing, several original prayers had become stale. The petitioners therefore confined the controversy to four surviving areas: registration of criminal cases concerning alleged inflammatory speeches; independent investigation/SIT in relation to alleged police inaction, complicity and misconduct; preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic records; and compensation and rehabilitation.
During the pendency of the petitions, the criminal justice process progressed substantially. The Court recorded that 757 criminal cases had been registered; as on 19 February 2026, 65 cases had been transferred to the Crime Branch, charge-sheets had been filed in 369 cases, proceedings in 212 cases were pending before criminal courts, and investigation in 249 cases continued. The record also reflected 22 convictions, 108 acquittals and 16 discharge orders.
The compensation issue had also materially progressed. GNCTD appointed a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court as Claims Commissioner to assess riot-related damages and determine compensation, and claims were processed under that mechanism.
The Court also took account of the Supreme Court judgment in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors., delivered on 29 April 2026, which addressed hate-speech enforcement, remedies for non-registration of FIRs and the limits of continuing mandamus.
Issues
Whether the Delhi High Court should exercise Article 226 jurisdiction to direct registration of fresh FIRs against named persons for alleged inflammatory speeches connected with the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
Whether allegations of police inaction, complicity, misconduct and procedural violations justified constitution of an SIT, transfer of investigation to an independent agency, court-monitored investigation, or a general/roving inquiry against police officials.
Whether further blanket directions were required for preservation of CCTV footage, mobile recordings and other electronic evidence.
Whether the Court should issue further general directions for compensation and rehabilitation of riot victims despite the claims mechanism already established and acted upon.
How the availability of remedies under the ordinary criminal process, the passage of more than six years, the progress of investigations and trials, and the Supreme Court ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay affected the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that speeches, video recordings, photographs, transcripts and other contemporaneous material disclosed cognizable offences and a nexus between inflammatory statements by identified public functionaries and the communal violence. Repeated complaints had allegedly failed to result in effective action.
It was argued that the Delhi Police had adopted a selective and discriminatory approach and that complaints against certain political figures had not been dealt with in accordance with the mandatory principle in Lalita Kumari requiring registration of an FIR where information discloses a cognizable offence.
On investigation, the petitioners relied on video recordings, photographs, victim testimonies, affidavits, fact-finding reports and particularly the Delhi Minorities Commission report to allege police inaction, refusal to register complaints, delayed or improper investigation and, in some instances, active participation by police personnel.
They submitted that because serious allegations were directed against the local police itself, the investigation should not remain with the same agency. Reliance was placed on constitutional precedents permitting transfer where an independent investigation is necessary to inspire confidence.
The petitioners also alleged breaches of safeguards under Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 174 CrPC relating to arrest, detention, access to counsel, records and inquest proceedings.
For electronic evidence, the petitioners submitted that CCTV footage, mobile recordings, photographs and other digital material were crucial to reconstructing the riots and should be preserved against alteration, deletion or destruction.
On compensation and rehabilitation, they argued that the riots caused deaths, injuries, destruction of property and displacement, and that compensation in several cases was inadequate, requiring further judicial directions.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Union/State opposed directions for fresh FIRs, contending that the petitions selectively targeted political and public figures belonging to different parties or groups and that the issues had substantially been addressed by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
The Respondents emphasized that the criminal procedure provides a complete hierarchy of remedies for non-registration of FIRs and deficient investigation, including recourse to senior police officers, the jurisdictional Magistrate and criminal complaint proceedings.
On the SIT/transfer prayer, the State submitted that investigations had substantially progressed over six years. A wholesale transfer at that stage would duplicate completed work, unsettle charge-sheets and trials, and potentially disturb cases that had already culminated in judgments.
The State argued that mere dissatisfaction with investigation, or allegations against individual police personnel, could not establish that the entire investigative process was institutionally tainted or incapable of inspiring confidence.
As to electronic evidence, the learned ASG submitted that relevant CCTV footage, digital recordings and other electronic material had been preserved and formed part of the investigative records, making further blanket directions unnecessary.
On compensation, the State submitted that a Claims Commissioner had already been appointed, claims had been invited and processed, and compensation and ex gratia assistance had been provided.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began from the breadth, but also the self-imposed limits, of Article 226. Writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and is not intended to displace statutory criminal procedure merely because the allegations are serious.
For registration of FIRs, Lalita Kumari continues to govern the police obligation where information discloses a cognizable offence. However, Sakiri Vasu establishes that a person aggrieved by non-registration or improper investigation should ordinarily pursue the statutory hierarchy: remedies before senior police officers, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate, and, where appropriate, a complaint under Section 200 CrPC.
The Court treated Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay as having direct bearing. The Supreme Court held that the substantive criminal law already contains provisions dealing with hate speech; the CrPC/BNSS provides a comprehensive multi-tiered mechanism for non-registration of FIRs; constitutional remedies remain available but should not routinely bypass the statutory framework; and continuing mandamus was not warranted absent a systemic failure of sufficient magnitude.
For transfer of investigation, Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, K.V. Rajendran and Rubabbuddin Sheikh establish that constitutional courts possess the power to transfer investigations, but it is reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances where the existing investigation is demonstrably tainted, biased, compromised or incapable of inspiring confidence.
The Court also stressed the special caution required where PIL jurisdiction is invoked to supervise criminal investigations or prosecutions. Janata Dal, Simranjit Singh Mann, Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” and Tehseen Poonawalla were relied upon to underline that PIL cannot become a vehicle for political or collateral contests or for judicial supervision of ordinary criminal proceedings.
As regards compensation, the Court acknowledged Rudul Sah and Nilabati Behera: monetary compensation can be awarded in public law for an established infringement of fundamental rights. But that power does not require a general compensation direction where an institutional claims mechanism exists, has substantially operated, and no systemic failure is demonstrated.
Precedent Analysis
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh: Registration of an FIR is mandatory where information received by police discloses a cognizable offence. The Delhi High Court accepted the proposition but held that it did not automatically justify a fresh writ direction where statutory remedies remained available.
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh: A complainant alleging non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation should ordinarily invoke remedies under Sections 154(3), 36 and 156(3) CrPC, and may file a complaint under Section 200, instead of directly invoking writ or Section 482 jurisdiction.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.: The Supreme Court held that existing substantive law addresses hate speech and that the CrPC/BNSS contains efficacious remedies for non-registration of FIRs. Constitutional intervention remains exceptional, and the Court declined a continuing mandamus. The Delhi High Court regarded this ruling as substantially overlapping the present controversy.
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police: Transfer to CBI or another independent agency is an extraordinary measure to be used sparingly in rare and exceptional cases, not merely because allegations are levelled against local police.
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat: Independent investigation may be warranted where circumstances show that State police cannot fairly continue and transfer is necessary to secure confidence and complete justice. The Court distinguished that threshold from the disputed and non-conclusive material before it.
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India; Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” v. Union of India; Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India: These decisions were used to emphasize restraint in PILs seeking intervention in criminal proceedings and the danger of converting constitutional jurisdiction into a supervisory mechanism over investigation and trial.
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa: Public-law compensation is available for established violation of fundamental rights, but its exercise depends on the facts and does not justify a blanket award where an existing compensation framework has already processed claims.
Court’s Reasoning
On the prayer for fresh FIRs, the Court held that the statutory mechanism for grievances concerning non-registration and investigation remained available and had been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. No exceptional circumstance was shown warranting a further Article 226 direction against particular individuals.
The Court also found that much of the speech-related material consisted of transcripts, excerpts, video recordings, newspaper clippings and media reports whose completeness, authenticity and context were disputed. Those evidentiary questions were more appropriately examined by competent investigating agencies or criminal courts.
On the demand for an SIT or independent investigation, the Court held that allegations against police, without more, did not satisfy the high threshold for displacing the existing agency. The Delhi Minorities Commission report could not simply be disregarded, but it was a fact-finding exercise and did not conclusively determine individual police culpability or prove that the Delhi Police investigations as a whole were tainted.
The Court noted that many factual assertions were contested and that numerous investigations had already culminated in charge-sheets, pending trials and judgments. Article 226 was not the proper forum to resolve those disputed questions of fact or to order a wholesale transfer that could unsettle ongoing proceedings and prejudice victims, witnesses and accused persons.
Alleged violations of Sections 41B, 41C, 41D and 174 CrPC were recognized as serious because those safeguards protect personal liberty and police accountability. However, individual violations could be examined in the corresponding criminal proceedings; the material did not establish a systemic violation of Articles 21 and 22 warranting an independent investigative mechanism.
On electronic evidence, the Court accepted the importance of CCTV and digital material but found no specific instance demonstrating destruction, tampering or deliberate withholding of relevant evidence. After filing of police reports, questions of preservation, custody, production and summoning properly fall within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts handling individual prosecutions.
On compensation and rehabilitation, the Court found that a dedicated claims mechanism had already been constituted and substantially acted upon. Claims had been processed and compensation disbursed, while individual remedies continued to exist. No systemic failure requiring further blanket directions was established.
Ultimately, the Court considered the passage of more than six years and the substantial progress of the criminal justice and compensation processes decisive in assessing whether any general writ directions still served a legitimate constitutional purpose.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the entire batch of writ petitions together with all pending applications and made no order as to costs.
It declined to direct registration of further FIRs against named persons, declined to constitute an SIT or independent investigative mechanism, refused a wholesale further investigation into allegations against police officials, declined additional blanket directions for preservation of electronic evidence, and refused further general directions concerning compensation and rehabilitation.
The Court nevertheless clarified that its conclusions did not decide the merits of individual complaints. Any individual remained at liberty to pursue remedies available under law, and competent authorities or jurisdictional criminal courts could act in appropriate individual cases.
Case Details
Case: Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Numbers: W.P.(CRL) 665/2020 with W.P.(CRL) 588/2020, W.P.(CRL) 700/2020, W.P.(C) 2296/2020, W.P.(C) 3003/2020, W.P.(C) 2836/2020 and W.P.(CRL) 669/2020
Bench: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain
Reserved on: 24 July 2026
Date of Decision: 5 October 2026
Subject: 2020 North-East Delhi riots; alleged inflammatory speeches; registration of FIRs; SIT/independent investigation; police misconduct; preservation of electronic evidence; compensation and rehabilitation; Article 226 jurisdictionResult: All writ petitions and pending applications dismissed; no order as to costs; individual remedies expressly left open.
