‘Flawed Theory-Building’: Delhi Court Voids ‘Further Investigation’ in Delhi Riots Case Against Kapil Mishra
Court held that the Magistrate exceeded powers under Section 175(3) BNSS; said order for “further investigation” in 2020 Delhi riots case against Kapil Mishra was based on flawed reasoning and lacked jurisdiction
Rouse Avenue Court sets aside Magistrate’s order directing “further investigation” against BJP leader Kapil Mishra in 2020 Delhi riots case, calling it a jurisdictional overreach
A Delhi Court has struck down an order directing “further investigation” against BJP leader Kapil Mishra in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, describing the magistrate’s approach as “flawed theory-building” and a clear instance of jurisdictional overreach.
In a detailed order dated November 10, 2025, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh set aside the ACJM’s April 1, 2025 order passed in a complaint by Mohammad Ilyas, calling it “illegal, improper and unsustainable in law.”
The Court ruled that the ACJM had no power to order “further investigation” in FIR No. 59/2020, a case already under the cognizance of a Special Court dealing with the larger conspiracy behind the riots.
“The Ld. ACJM travelled beyond his authority and dealt with issues already within the domain of the trial court,” the revisional Court observed, adding that once the final report had been filed and cognizance taken, “the Magistrate could not have invoked powers under Section 175(3) BNSS (akin to Section 156(3) CrPC).”
The Judge noted that the ACJM’s order was ambiguous and suffered from “conflicting interpretations,” repeatedly using the term “further investigation” without clarifying whether a fresh FIR was being directed.
“Judicial orders affecting rights and liberty must be explicit and unambiguous,” the Court stressed, observing that such lack of clarity reflected a “material flaw in the judicial exercise.”
The Court also held that the complaint itself did not disclose a cognizable offence, as it lacked material particulars such as time, place, and identity of participants. The magistrate, it said, had gone beyond the limited scope of Section 175(3) BNSS by engaging in a detailed analysis of evidence from an ongoing trial before a higher court.
Further, since the complaint named then DCP Ved Prakash Surya, the Court said the ACJM failed to comply with the safeguards under Section 175(4) BNSS, which require a report from a superior officer and a hearing before directing investigation against a public servant.
Concluding that the ACJM’s order reflected “a misapplication of judicial principles and jurisdictional overreach,” the Court set it aside, holding that the direction for “further investigation” in the riots case “cannot stand in law.”
Notably, on October 25, reserved its order for November 10 on a plea filed by Mishra challenging a lower court’s direction to register an FIR against him in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots, which claimed 53 lives. Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh who had earlier stayed the lower court’s order for the FIR, said, “Put up this matter along with the connected file for orders on November 10.”
It is to be noted, that on March 8, the Delhi Court had upheld the trial court’s order to take cognizance against BJP leader Kapil Mishra for promoting enemity between classes in connection with Delhi Legislative Assembly Elections. Special Judge Jitendra Singh had held, “The word ‘Pakistan’ is very skillfully weaved by the revisionist in his alleged statements to spew hatred, careless to communal polarisation that may ensue in the election compaign, only to garner votes… One cannot be allowed to do something, that has been prohibited by Section 125 of RP Act, indirectly, if he cannot do it directly”.
In June 2023, a Magisterial Court had summoned Mishra, a decision upheld by a special judge who dismissed his revision petition. The Delhi High Court also refused to stay the trial court proceedings in March 2025.
Order Date: November 10, 2025
Bench: Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh