2020 Delhi Riots: Court Flags Confusion in Charge Sheets, Seeks Report from Police Commissioner

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Court made the observations while hearing arguments on charge in a case involving two clashing mobs from different communities during the Delhi riots. The judge noted that despite clear directions from the court in January 2025, the police had failed to clarify which mob was responsible for specific incidents of rioting, arson, or damage, and had instead filed a confusing supplementary chargesheet.

In an order dated October 16, the Court said, “It appears that the state has made a complete mess in this matter.”

The Court observed that the confusion stemmed from the way the charge sheet was drafted. The predecessor judge had already noted that the prosecution had clubbed two separate mobs, each with distinct motives, into a single charge sheet. Both groups were accused of multiple offences during the February 2020 communal riots, but the document provided no clarity on which mob was responsible for specific incidents of rioting, arson, or property damage.

The Court further pointed out that, despite clear directions from the earlier judge to investigate specific complaints, including those by three individuals, Azad, Zaid, and Sarla Devi, the prosecution had instead sought to withdraw certain complaints.

When questioned, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) informed the court that a third supplementary charge sheet would be filed.

“Could it be possible that this supplementary chargesheet, filed with certain undertakings and for a stated purpose, was merely to defeat the order of the court?” the judge asked, pointing out that even complaints explicitly mentioned in the earlier order, such as those of Azad, Zaid, and Sarla Devi, remained uninvestigated.

This new charge sheet proposed withdrawing seven complaints, discharging two accused persons, and filing separate FIRs for the withdrawn complaints. However, Judge Singh noted that the police had not actually registered any new FIRs nor conducted any meaningful investigation into the specific complaints identified.

“Apparently, instead of conducting further investigation as directed, and to show how these two mobs could have been connected, the prosecution, if I may say so, has tried to circumvent that order,” the Court remarked.

Judge Singh said the supplementary charge sheet had only “further complicated” an already confused case and that the police had failed to comply with the previous order dated January 21, 2025.

The Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Delhi Police Commissioner, instructing that remedial action be taken and a compliance report, signed either by the Commissioner or the Special Commissioner, be submitted before the next hearing on November 14.