2020 Delhi Riots: Delhi HC Declines Fresh Probe Into Police Investigation

The Delhi High Court has declined to transfer the 2020 Delhi riots investigation, finding no material showing that the existing police probe was compromised.

What Happened

On 5 October 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain dismissed a batch of seven writ petitions arising from the violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020. Judgment had been reserved on 24 July 2026.

The lead matter was Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) 665/2020, heard along with connected petitions. The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, registration of criminal cases against named persons, transfer of the investigation to an independent agency or constitution of a Special Investigation Team, preservation of evidence, and compensation and rehabilitation. The Court declined all of these general reliefs.

The central issue concerning the investigation was whether allegations of police misconduct during the riots were sufficient to justify transferring the investigation away from the Delhi Police.

The Court held that allegations against police personnel, by themselves, do not establish that the subsequent investigation was compromised. For a constitutional court to displace an existing investigating agency, there must be material connecting the alleged misconduct to the investigative process and showing that the investigation has become so compromised or lacking in credibility that exceptional intervention is required.

The Court noted that there was no specific material showing that an investigating officer, senior police officer or supervisory authority involved in the investigation had participated in the alleged misconduct, had a personal interest in shielding anyone, or had otherwise influenced or impeded the investigation.

That distinction is central to the judgment. The Court did not determine whether the allegations concerning police conduct during the riots were true or false. Instead, it considered whether those allegations provided a sufficient basis to conclude that the later investigation itself could not be fairly conducted.

Background & Context

The petitions arose from the violence in North-East Delhi in February 2020. The judgment records the loss of life, displacement and extensive property damage during the events.

The petitioners alleged that police personnel failed to intervene in certain situations, declined or delayed registration of complaints, participated in unlawful acts, and failed to comply with statutory safeguards concerning arrest and detention. These were allegations made in the proceedings and were disputed by the State. The State maintained that the investigations had been conducted in accordance with law.

The judgment records that, as of 19 February 2026, 757 criminal cases had been registered. Of these, 65 had been transferred to the Crime Branch, charge-sheets had been filed in 369 cases, 212 of those cases were pending before criminal courts, and investigation was continuing in 249 cases. The criminal courts had also recorded convictions, acquittals, discharges and other dispositions in cases arising from the violence.

The Court considered material relied upon by the petitioners, including video recordings, newspaper reports, accounts of affected persons and other reports. It noted that much of this material was disputed by the respondents, while questions concerning authenticity, context and interpretation were factual matters that could not ordinarily be conclusively determined in proceedings under Article 226, particularly where criminal proceedings were already pending.

The Court also considered the Delhi Minorities Commission’s report. It did not disregard the report, but found that it principally recorded accounts of affected persons and did not, by itself, establish that the investigations as a whole had been tainted or determine the culpability of individual officers.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, before Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain.
• Date: 5 October 2026. Judgment was reserved on 24 July 2026.
• Case: Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) 665/2020 and connected matters.
• Legal provisions discussed: Article 226 of the Constitution; Articles 21 and 22; Sections 41B, 41C, 41D, 154(3), 156(3), 174 and 200 of the CrPC.
• Reliefs sought: FIRs against named persons, an SIT or transfer of investigation, preservation of evidence, compensation and rehabilitation.
• Current status: Petitions dismissed, with pending applications also disposed of and individual legal remedies left open.

The Court also declined to direct registration of criminal cases against particular individuals. In dealing with that prayer, it relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, as described in the High Court judgment, and noted that the material placed before it was excerpted and that its authenticity and context had not been established. The Court also pointed to statutory remedies available under the CrPC for grievances concerning registration of FIRs.

The High Court clarified that this conclusion was not an adjudication on the merits of any individual complaint.

On evidence preservation, the Court found no basis for a general direction. It noted the State’s position that relevant footage had been preserved and formed part of the investigation records, while the petitioners had not identified a specific instance of destruction or tampering.

The Court similarly found no need for general directions concerning compensation and rehabilitation. It noted that a Claims Commissioner, a retired High Court judge, had been appointed to assess damage and compensation, that claims had been processed and compensation disbursed, and that no systemic failure of that mechanism had been demonstrated.

The judgment nevertheless left individuals free to pursue whatever remedies may be available on the facts of their particular cases.

Why It Matters

The judgment is significant for what it says about the threshold for transferring an investigation from an existing agency.

A constitutional court’s power to order an independent investigation or transfer a probe is treated as an exceptional one. The Court’s reasoning draws a line between two different questions: whether police personnel may have committed misconduct during an incident, and whether the investigation into that incident was subsequently compromised.

For the Court, the first does not automatically establish the second. There must be material linking the alleged misconduct to the investigative process itself before an existing investigation is displaced. The Court also referred to the principle illustrated by Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, where the circumstances included allegations against senior police officials themselves.

This distinction matters because a finding that an investigation should remain with its existing agency is not the same as a finding that every allegation concerning the underlying events is unfounded. The Court did not clear individual police personnel of allegations, nor did it determine the merits of individual complaints.

The passage of time also played a role. More than six years had elapsed since the violence, while numerous criminal cases had progressed to different stages. The Court considered that a wholesale transfer or roving inquiry at this stage could affect pending proceedings and potentially prejudice victims, witnesses and accused persons.

The decision also illustrates why courts may direct individual grievances back to ordinary statutory remedies rather than creating a broad constitutional investigation. Where a particular arrest, FIR, investigation step or other alleged violation can be examined in an individual proceeding, the existence of that remedy can weigh against a court-ordered restructuring of the entire investigation.

The Court also observed that the record showed an element of selectivity in the way certain individuals and speeches had been targeted by the petitioners. It expressly did not consider it necessary to make any finding about the petitioners’ motives. That observation therefore does not amount to a finding that the petitions were politically motivated.

Most importantly, the judgment does not close the criminal cases arising from the 2020 violence. Investigations and proceedings continue in numerous matters, and individual parties remain free to pursue remedies available under law.

Closing

The Delhi High Court’s ruling is ultimately about the threshold for judicial intervention in an ongoing investigation, rather than a final determination of the disputed events of February 2020.

The Court declined to order a fresh probe because it found no material connecting allegations of police misconduct during the violence with a compromise of the subsequent investigation. It did not decide the merits of those underlying allegations or declare any individual police officer free from potential liability.

For legal practitioners and students, the judgment reinforces a narrower principle: allegations concerning an incident and allegations that the investigation into that incident has been compromised are legally distinct. The latter requires material capable of justifying the exceptional step of replacing the existing investigative process.