New Delhi: Over six years after they were filed, Delhi High Court Monday dismissed a batch of PILs seeking, among other prayers, an SIT probe into the 2020 northeast Delhi riots and prosecution of BJP’s Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra and Parvesh Verma for alleged hate speeches.It noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the magistrate, HC and even Supreme Court seeking registration of FIRs, but his challenge failed before the apex court in 2022.“SC did not direct registration of any FIR or order any continuing judicial supervision of any investigation… it leaves little scope for this court to independently revisit the legal principles governing the relief,” a bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain noted, adding that the complaints concerning alleged inflammatory speeches, grievance of alleged police inaction and the recourse to statutory remedies constitute important features of the proceedings, which ultimately travelled to SC.“No subsequent development has been brought to our notice, which may warrant issuance of direction for registration of FIRs in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court,” HC said.Other petitions sought action against Congress’ Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra; AAP’s Manish Sisodia and Amanatullah Khan, and AIMIM’s Akbaruddin Owaisi.However, it flagged that the record indicates an element of “political selectivity” in the way certain individuals and particular speeches have been targeted for action by respective petitioners quoting selectively.It pointed out that in several instances, only portions or excerpts of the purported speeches were placed on record by the petitioners and the completeness and authenticity of the speeches were not established and the context in which such statements were made was also disputed.“We, therefore, cannot proceed on the assumption that the material placed before us represents complete and accurate versions of the speeches or record a definitive finding of fact as to their contents or context,” the court said.“To sum up, as on date, we find no exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court to direct registration of further FIRs, constitute an independent investigative mechanism, order wholesale further investigation into allegations against police officials, issue additional blanket directions regarding preservation of evidence, or grant further general directions relating to compensation and rehabilitation,” the bench said in its judgment.HC said it cannot be overlooked that the petitions were pending for more than six years during which the criminal justice process has significantly progressed and no case was made out for constituting an SIT, directing a court-monitored probe or transferring the investigation to any independent agency.
