The Delhi High Court on Monday, October 5, dismissed batches of petitions seeking independent investigations into the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and the December 2019 violence at Jamia Millia Islamia. Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain pronounced the outcome, according to separate reports by The Indian Express, ANI and ABP Live.
The riots-related petitions sought several forms of intervention, including a special investigation team and criminal cases over alleged hate speeches and police misconduct. The requests came from different petitioners and targeted leaders from more than one political party; they were not a single complaint against one organisation.
The Indian Express reported that petitions by Brinda Karat and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind concerned alleged police inaction and inflammatory speeches, while other petitioners sought investigation into alleged funding of the violence and action against Congress leaders. Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq sought a team independent of Delhi Police. These were the petitioners’ allegations and requested remedies.
The Jamia cases sought an independent inquiry into alleged police violence against students during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. ANI reported that Delhi Police opposed transferring the investigation and told the court that CCTV material from inside and outside the university and nearby areas had been collected and preserved. That is the police’s submission, not an independently verified assessment of the footage.
The High Court’s official October 5 pronouncement list placed the connected matters before this bench at 10:30 a.m. Contemporary reports said the bench dismissed both sets and that detailed judgments were still awaited. The list confirms which matters were scheduled; it does not itself give the reasons for dismissal.
The fresh development is the disposal of these petitions, not a new outbreak of violence. Without the written reasons, it would be premature to characterise the ruling as a finding that every allegation was false or that any person had been exonerated. The reviewed material did not establish that separate criminal proceedings arising from the events had been closed.