Read Time: 05 minutes
Recent bail hearings in the 2020 Delhi riots case highlighted concerns about delayed justice. Media reports often blamed the judiciary and public prosecutors for obstructing bail applications of the accused. However, an October 4 order by Judge Bajpai revealed that despite an agreed-upon schedule, no party was ready to proceed on the set date. This suggests that the adjournments were a shared responsibility, a point often ignored in media coverage, which focused mainly on systemic failures.
In a recent hearing before the Delhi High Court, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, accompanied by Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad, described the 2020 Delhi riots as a “Clinical and Pathological Conspiracy planned with Diabolical Intentions”.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, who scheduled the matter for further arguments on January 9, 2025, at 2:30 PM.
During the hearing on January 7, ASG Sharma presented a grim account of the violence. He reported that 53 lives were lost, and 100 police officials sustained injuries in 2019. In 2020, 208 police officials and 540 civilians were injured, with 52 fatalities among the public. This underscored the severity of the unrest.
ASG Sharma asserted that the prosecution’s case pointed to a meticulously planned conspiracy executed with malicious intent. He stated that a second bail application could only be justified by a change in circumstances, which was not evident in the present case. However, he clarified that this observation was case-specific and did not apply universally, as some appeals were being heard for the first time.
ASG Sharma emphasized that mass violence was an exception to the norm that bail should be granted. He argued that the current case involved a far more calculated conspiracy.
SPP Amit Prasad supplemented Sharma’s arguments by presenting a detailed timeline of events. He stated that the conspiracy planning occurred between December 9 and 17, with the riots commencing on February 20 and intensifying by February 24. He cited incriminating WhatsApp messages, including one on February 24, which stated, “Aag lagvane ki puri tyari hai” (the planning for inciting fire/violence is complete). He also highlighted evidence of deliberate mobilization, such as the disconnection of cameras, to demonstrate that the events were premeditated rather than spontaneous.
SPP Prasad referred to observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 62 of a previous order, which suggested that the material collected pointed to a premeditated conspiracy aimed at disruption through chakka jam (road blockades) and incitement to violence. He argued that these protests were destructive and deviated from the norm of peaceful demonstrations.
In his presentation, SPP Prasad linked the geographical locations of the riots in Northeast Delhi to First Information Reports (FIRs) and showcased video evidence implicating individuals in acts of violence. He also presented WhatsApp group messages, including one advising participants to avoid openly documenting their plans. He contended that these actions formed a clear chain of events indicative of a conspiracy.
Please Login or Register
