The Delhi High Court on Monday said that there was no material before it to demonstrate that the Delhi Police had acted to compromise the investigation in the 2020 Delhi riots.
A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain refused to rule that the entire investigative machinery of the Delhi Police is institutionally incapable of conducting a fair investigation into the riots.
"The allegations against some police personnel being engaged in the riots, even if assumed to be correct, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the entire investigative machinery of the Delhi Police is institutionally incapable of conducting a fair investigation," the Court observed.
The High Court rendered these findings while rejecting a batch of petitions seeking independent investigation into the 2020 riots which killed over 50 people in the national capital.
It also rejected the petitions seeking FIR against politicians for making hate speeches that allegedly led to the riots.
The politicians against whom action was sought included Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Manish Sisodia and Asaduddin Owaisi.
After considering the petitions, the Bench said that the material placed before it did not establish a connection between the alleged misconduct of some officials during the riots and the subsequent investigation.
It noted there was no specific material showing that any investigating officer, senior police officer or supervisory authority entrusted with the investigation was implicated in the alleged acts, had a personal interest in shielding police personnel or had acted to compromise the probe.
The Court added that more than six years have passed since the riots and various criminal cases related to it are at different stages, therefore, transferring the investigation now to a separate agency would affect the numerous criminal proceedings.
The Bench further said that the petitions seeking FIR against politicians for hate speech showed "political selectivity".
It concluded that no case was made out for directions to register criminal cases against any particular individual.
[Read Judgment]