2020 Delhi riots: Kapil Mishra given time to reply to Delhi Police's investigation revisions
The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted respondents time to file a reply on the revisions filed by Delhi Police and Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra. The court is dealing with two revisions challenging the order for further investigation on the role of Kapil Mishra in the North East Delhi riots of 2020.
Special judge Kaveri Baweja granted time to respondents Mohd Iliyas, Kapil Mishra, and others to file a reply on the petitions.
The court has also directed Delhi police to supply a copy of the charge sheet filed in the Delhi Riots larger conspiracy to the respondents.
The court has listed the matter on May 7 for arguments, and the interim stay is to continue till the next date.
On April 9, the court issued notice on the revision petitions moved by Kapil Mishra. He has challenged the order passed by the magistrate court directing further investigation into the North Delhi riots of 2020.
The court had stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial court till the next date of hearing. The court had also called the trial court records.
Meanwhile, the sessions court has stayed the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) in relation to the investigation of the Delhi police in the larger Conspiracy case.
During the hearing, Advocate Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police, Senior advocate Pavan Narang, along with Advocates Neeraj and Himanshu Sethi, appeared for MLA Mohan Singh Bisht, and Advocate Manya Hashija appeared for Kapil Mishra.
The magistrate court had passed an order for further investigation on the basis of material placed by the Delhi police and the application of one Mohd. Illiyas.
Applicant Mohd Illiyas had sought a direction for registration of an FIR against Kapil Mishra and others.
Senior advocate Pramod Dubey appeared for Kapil Mishra. He argued, "Can a further investigation without having an FIR? Where is the FIR? And there is no identification of the area of the police station."
"In the absence of a FIR direction, an FIR can not be given," Senior advocate Dubey argued.
Dubey also submitted that further investigation can be ordered during the pendency of the Final Report.
"There was no Charge sheet before the MP MLA Court. There should be pendency of charge sheet. For registration of an FIR, a complaint has to be filed before the police first, only after that, an application for registration of an FIR can be filed in the court. One ATR was filed when the matter was pending in the KKD court. Three ATRs were filed by the police. My client was interrogated by Delhi Police," it stated.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared for the Delhi police and raised the question of jurisdiction of the magistrate court, which passed the order under challenge.
He submitted that even this court could not pass this court as it does not have the jurisdiction to deal with an FIR which is already under consideration of a special court, and a charge sheet has been filed.
This application for registration of FIR was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha, who was part of the propaganda building team in 2020, and the SPP submitted it before the court. This complaint was given to all officers and even the prime minister. Emails were sent to the prime minister, the home minister, the DCP, and the Commissioner of police. It was not emailed to SHO. This email cannot be treated as the compliance with necessary requirements for registration of FIR, Prasad added.
"A Status report narrating the five incidents was filed by the police," the SPP for Delhi police said.
It was also argued that there was improvisation of the statement of the complainant. First, he said that the vehicles of Muslims and Dalits were stopped, and later on were allowed to go.
Later, the statement was changed to reflect that there was a Road block, damage to the cart of Muslims and Dalits at Kardam Puri road, SPP added.
There was no allegation of violation; the court below embellished the Complaint, the SPP submitted.
He further submitted that we informed the court that we have investigated the role of Kapil Mishra. Advocate Pracha was asked to argue, but he didn't; meanwhile, the roster was changed. We were again summoned and asked to place on record the material.
"We were directed to further investigate on the basis of material we provided in a matter which is before the special court," SPP submitted.
The court asked, "Had you ever investigated the allegations in the complaint before filing the charge sheet in the larger Conspiracy.
"Are there any other complaints alleging the road block by Kapil Mishra?" the judge questioned.
SPP submitted that there are multiple such complaints, but nothing incriminating was found.
He was asked during the recording of that statement whether he had ever visited the place of the incident. He replied that he lives in Yamuna Vihar, and a petrol pump was burnt near his colony, SPP said.
There are 751 FIRs, no FIR talks about damage of vehicles on the same date and time between 3 pm to 6 pm, it added.
It was further submitted by the SPP that he was called to assist the court in the matter of application under section 156(3) and was given direction under section 173( 8) for further investigation, it was not expected.
"I am going to face music every day due to this order," SPP added. All these cases are tried in KKD, you do not get the power to give observation on the police investigation in a case that is before the special court, he added.
He prayed that the observation of the trial court should be stayed.
First Published: 21 Apr 2025, 12:12 PM IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Harsh Mander: When lawless cruelty becomes state policy – India's casting of Rohingya into the sea
In 11 years of Modi's stewardship of the Indian republic, the Indian people have become inured to sometimes numbing targeted cruelty, meted out by state authorities as state policy. Bulldozers raze Muslim homes without any legal process, people who raise voices of dissent are locked for years in prisons without due process, police bullets fell or permanently disable thousands, shrines are flattened, and the police stands by as men are beaten to death by lynch mobs. But even by these abysmal standards of hate politics as state policy, the Indian state recently plummeted to new depths. Credible reports filtered in despite the thick walls of government-controlled media, of 40 Rohingyas – including women, teenagers, seniors and one cancer patient – thrown into the sea from a naval ship. They were abandoned to desperately swim to the shore of Myanmar. This is the land they had fled to escape genocide. When I first heard fragments of this news I responded with utter disbelief. With time this changed to shame and rage. This travesty occurred in the wake of the storms of hate that followed the Pahalgam terror attack. Television studios and right-wing social media handles scalded with anger targeting not just Pakistanis but people they alleged were proxies and supporters of Pakistani terror – Indian Muslims and Rohingya refugees in India. It did not matter that these allegations were Islamophobic, and entirely wild and incendiary. The state did nothing to quell or contradict these contentions. The microscopic population of Rohingya refugees in India, living on the precipice of bare survival at the best of times, felt even more unguarded and exposed. As if to confirm their worst fears, state authorities soon launched campaigns to round up Rohingyas, confine them in detention centres and sometimes, as in Gujarat, to demolish their homes. The news of Rohingya refugees being thrown off an Indian naval ship into the sea was first broken by the media portal Maktoob Media followed by a careful investigative report by Scroll. The events that led up to this began on May 6 and 7, when as hostilities broke out between India and Pakistan, the Delhi Police organised a major crackdown against Rohingya refugees. Scroll reports that at least 43 Rohingya men, women and children were detained after raids on the homes of Muslim and Christian Rohingya refugees in five slum settlements across Delhi: Hastasal, Uttam Nagar, Madanpur Khadar, Vikaspuri, and Shaheen Bagh. At least one Rohingya man was dragged out from a public hospital where he was tending to his wife. They spent hours in police stations without food, then were transferred to Delhi's detention centre for 'illegal immigrants' in Inderlok. They were told that this was only to collect their biometric data. The refugees report abysmal conditions of sanitation, food and water at the detention centre. From there, they were bussed to the Delhi airport and flown 1,300 kilometres to Port Blair in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Following this, the petrified bunch report being blindfolded, their hands shackled, and boarded on to a naval ship. The sea journey was harrowing. Some women allege being groped and sexually harassed. The authorities assured them that they were being shipped to safety in Indonesia. Three or four hours later, their blindfolds and shackles were removed. Given life jackets, they were all forced to jump into the sea – including older people, children, women and the ailing. Fortunately, they all survived. They reached the shore, but speaking to local people, their dread compounded. They realised that they were not in Indonesia but back in Myanmar, the country they had fled to escape genocide, ethnic cleansing and military crackdowns. They found out that they were in the war-torn southern coast of Myanmar, far from their homeland in Rakhine. Their good fortune was that this patch was not controlled by the military junta. In charge was the civilian National Unity Government in exile, that the military had violently ousted, so the ejectees were safe at least for the present. This horrific tale emerged first from calls to family members left behind in Delhi. To verify the veracity of their accounts, Scroll compared the names and ages of the 40 refugees provided by the National Unity Government with the list of the 43 refugees picked up in Delhi. It found 36 of these to be the same or substantially similar. The Rohingya in Delhi also verified the photographs. These facts seem beyond doubt. That the Indian state chose to pick up around 40 Rohingya refugees – all of whom, incidentally were recognised to be refugees by the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR – in a sudden crackdown, and ultimately threw them into the sea with only a life jacket, close to the shore of a land that they fled to escape genocide. Moe, the minister in Myanmar's civilian government-in-exile, said to Scroll, 'Deporting them while they were attempting refuge is sending them back to the hell they escaped from and survived.' Thomas Andrews, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, described 'the idea that Rohingya refugees have been cast into the sea from naval vessels' as nothing short of 'outrageous', 'unconscionable' and 'unacceptable'. It is true that India did not sign the 1951 Refugee Convention, which protects the legal rights of refugees – defined as persons fleeing persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion. Their most crucial right under the Convention is 'non-refoulement', which bars states from sending back refugees to persecution in their home countries. They also are entitled to secondary rights under the convention, such as to education, work and property. But even if India is not legally bound by the Refugee Convention, international customary law still binds India to not force people escaping genocidal persecution to return to the land where their lives are critically threatened. Not just this. Article 21 of India's Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty with dignity not only of citizens but all persons in the territory of India regardless of their legal status. The forceful banishment of the Rohingya into the seas near the coast of Myanmar clearly violates both international customary law and Indian constitutional law. And, apart from obligations imposed by the law, India has long argued that even without signing the Convention, it has in practice opened its borders to more refugees than most other countries in the world. Refugees who have found sanctuary in the Indian republic include Tibetans from China, Hindus from Bangladesh and Pakistan, Sri Lankan Tamils and Chin minorities from Myanmar. It is a proud tradition from which India has ignominiously fallen. With a tradition of centuries' vintage of welcoming the persecuted of the world; a secular democratic Constitution that guarantees the right to life even of those who are not legal citizens; and the obligations of international customary law, how has India today descended to this place? A place in which exceptional cruelty, prejudice and a casual defiance of constitutional obligations and customary international law have become official state policy? India of course has the legal right to return people from other countries who unlawfully entered India. But the law requires that the return of undocumented migrants who are convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946 must be carefully negotiated with the country of origin. Further, when the country of origin refuses to recognise them as its citizens – like the Myanmar military government refuses to recognise Rohingya people as its citizens – and instead they are threatened with genocidal violence, the forced return of persons to conditions of genocide violates international law, constitutional obligations and the principles of ordinary humanity. The Supreme Court in 2021 underlined that deportations of Rohingya refugees cannot be allowed 'unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed'. It is true also that India does not have a refugee policy. Indian law does not distinguish between refugees and asylum-seekers on the one hand, and undocumented immigrants on the other. But this has not come in the way of India becoming home to persecuted Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils and Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindus. India under Modi in 2019 amended a law to fast-track the grant of citizenship rights to persecuted minorities in India's neighbourhood, with one major exception. This is that they should not be of Muslim identity. The Rohingya are often cited to be the most persecuted minority in the world. They are also from India's neighbourhood, like Hindu minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Why then are they barred not just from citizenship but even long-term visas? Instead why are they stigmatised as both dangerous and parasitical, and in recent years forcefully ejected? Is it only because of their religious identity? Throwing people off a naval ship into the sea is only an extreme manifestation of a policy of 'pushing back' undocumented persons across international borders into the country from which they originated. Effectively a policy of 'pushing back' means that the state chooses to sidestep due legal process and deny persons the right to state their claims to continue to reside in India. The person who the state claims is a foreign citizen might want to claim that she is an Indian citizen, that she is in India because she is related by marriage or otherwise to Indians, or that she is escaping persecution and seeks asylum in this country. The policy of pushing back denies the undocumented person to make and prove these claims. Instead, the state deems unilaterally that the person is an alien who must be forcefully removed from Indian soil. Along with this, by resorting to a policy of 'pushing back' undocumented persons, the state frees itself from the obligation of negotiating through diplomatic channels with the country of origin to accept the alien. Pushing back undocumented persons is not a policy created by the Modi-led BJP government. Angshuman Choudhury in Frontline and Rizwana Shamshad in her book Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees or Infiltrators? record that the Union Home Minister under the Congress government, P Chidambaram, in 1989 reported to Parliament that it had 'pushed back' 35,131 'Bangladeshi infiltrators' through the Assam, Tripura and West Bengal borders. In 1992, the PV Narasimha Rao-led Congress government launched a drive it named 'Operation Pushback' to round up hundreds of so-called 'illegal Bangladeshis' from Delhi and forcibly push them into Bangladesh through its border with West Bengal. In 2011, again a minister of a Congress-led government told Parliament that the Border Security Force undertook deportations in the ''push back' mode' if the identities of the alleged 'illegal Bangladeshis' could not be verified within 30 days. However, under the Modi-led government from 2014, the policies both of detention and 'pushing back' of undocumented persons is driven by testosterone. It has acquired a lethality, force and hyper-masculinity that derives from the central ideological project of the BJP and of its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. At its core lies visceral hatred against the Indian Muslim. Right from his first national election campaign in 2014, Modi alleged grave dangers posed by what he and his party compatriots describe as 'infiltrators', ghuspaithiyas or Bangladeshis. He overheated and deployed this language far more nakedly in the 2024 national elections. His cabinet and party colleagues, led by his closest associate Amit Shah, went much further, including describing them, in 2018, as insects and parasites. What is worthy of note is that when BJP leaders and right-wing trollers rail against undocumented immigrant – who they variously described as infiltrators, ghuspaithiyas, 'Bangladeshis', Rohingyas, insects and parasites – what they really are doing is dog-whistling against Indian Muslims. Their political message is that the Congress and other opposition parties 'appeased' Indian Muslims and illegally opened the borders for Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltrators only because they would vote for these opposition parties. It is the BJP alone that has the political courage and strength to take on these dangerous internal enemies. Therefore cruelty to the Rohingya is presented to BJP supporters as the gift to the Hindu majority of the strongman Hindu leader. Constructing the Rohingya as an enemy, as an intolerable burden to the nation, however requires considerable suspension of rational reasoning. First consider just their numbers. Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Kirren Rijiju informed Parliament in 2017 that there are 40,000 Rohingyas illegally residing in India. The UNHCR places the numbers today closer to 22,500. They subsist without assistance from the Indian government, typically in sub-human shanties as rag-pickers, domestic helpers and daily wagers. In a country of 1.3 billion people, by what stretch of imagination could 22,500 dirt-poor Rohingya people be considered an unbearable drain on India's resources? The claim that they are terrorists is also a stigma thrown at them only because of their Muslim identity. Not a single case of Rohingya terror has been established to date. India's refusal to fulfil its obligations under its constitution and international law are culpable enough. Even more distressing is the elevation of strongman lawless cruelty as state policy. Angshuman Choudhury observes that in today's India 'the body of the Muslim outsider, particularly the Bengali-speaking Muslim outsider, emerges as the pest'. He continues that 'this body is the homo sacer, a figure that may not be killed, but is also not worthy of saving. The sovereign has absolute power over this body, which is why it can pluck it out of its home at whim, shackle it, blindfold it, put it into a military transport aircraft, and drop it at sea or a mangrove inhabited by man-eating tigers'. He laments with luminous moral clarity, 'Amid the politics, diplomatese, and legality of these forced returns, we must not lose sight of a more fundamental pathology that they represent—a tragic perversion of India's humanitarian ethos and legacy of hospitality towards the weak and marginalised'. Swami Vivekananda in his historic address to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, referred precisely to this legacy when he declared, 'I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.' I wonder what he would make of his country today, which mercilessly casts the persecuted and refugees from other religions and countries into detention centres more oppressive than prisons, pushes them across borders with bullets flying on both sides, or throws them into the sea to swim ashore to genocidal persecution. I am grateful for research by Rupali Samuel.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi Police red-faced as crores stolen from special cell store; head constable held
Cops red-faced as crores stolen from police spl cell store; head constable held NEW DELHI: A high-profile theft has rocked Delhi Police special cell, with cash and jewellery worth crores going missing from its police station in Lodhi Colony. In a shocking twist, the culprit behind the daring heist was revealed to be none other than a head constable. Khurshid, the main suspect, had recently been transferred to the east district after serving in the special cell for a long time. He has been arrested, and Rs 50 lakh cash and jewellery valued at over Rs 2 crore recovered from him, officials said. The theft took place in early hours of May 31 at the cell's store (maalkhana). Sources said there were telltale signs that this was not the first theft from the store - at least three previous instances are under investigation - and that it could be an ongoing scam. It is also being probed whether records of cash at the maalkhana were being updated every day. The supervisory officers will be questioned and accountability fixed, sources said. The maalkhana is a secure facility where items seized by Delhi Police during various raids and operations are stored. These include cash, narcotics, weapons, gold etc. Khurshid had meticulously planned the theft and it hinged on his prior access and familiarity with the maalkhana. During his posting at the maalkhana, he had managed to get duplicate keys made of the storeroom locks which he used to execute the theft without being noticed or stopped. Khurshid was well-acquainted with the layout, security measures and routine operations. "Having previously worked there, he was also known to the staff and no one questioned his presence. When he entered the storeroom, the staff assumed he was there on official duty," said a sub-inspector who didn't wish to be named. Police said Khurshid quietly accessed the storeroom using the duplicate key and left with the stolen items without drawing attention or being caught in the CCTV. He, however, left the door open while leaving which led to the discovery of the theft in the morning. Sources said Khurshid was faintly captured on CCTV while trying to fudge the entry book around 2am. He was masked and wearing a helmet to camouflage his identity but colleagues identified him by his appearance and physical features. Special cell cops then raided his house in Indirapuram while placing his phone on surveillance. The stolen items were recovered from his car. The incident has exposed serious lapses. Questions are being raised on why the same unit was allowed to investigate the case given that there could be involvement of others from the cell, including seniors. Further, the possibility of Khurshid having stolen other items while he was in-charge of the store can't be ignored, said a former cell cop. The station's maalkhana came under inspector Shiv Darshan, ACP Rahul Vikram and DCP (now additional CP) Pratiksha Godara. "Khurshid was previously overseeing the store (maalkhana) until his transfer in April. He left the cell (relieved on paper) in the last week of May, days before the heist," said a source. "This is like the faux pas made in the Nadir Shah case where the unit under scanner was asked to probe the case just because it had prior intelligence connected to the incident," he added. Businessman Nadir Shah was gunned down in full public view outside a gym in GK-I last September. He was under police surveillance and many special cell cops were in the vicinity at the time of the killing. Sources said the police commissioner is likely to establish accountability once the probe is complete. For now, an FIR of theft has been registered at the special cell. A separate enquiry by the vigilance unit is likely to be ordered as well.
NDTV
6 hours ago
- NDTV
Cop Steals Rs 50 Lakh, Gold From Delhi Police's Warehouse, Arrested
New Delhi: Exposing the criminal mentality of some men in Khaki, the Delhi Police arrested one of its own personnel for stealing Rs 50 lakh and valuables from the anti-terror unit's warehouse in South Delhi, an official said on Monday. Head Constable Khurshid, who was shifted out of the Special Cell to the East District a few days ago, was arrested on Saturday for stealing Rs 50 lakh in cash in addition to gold jewellery of an unspecified amount from the Special Cell malkhana (store room) at the Lodhi Road office, the official said. He was identified and arrested using CCTV footage of Friday night when the theft took place, he said, adding that the stolen items have been recovered. According to officials, Khurshid relied upon departmental information about the presence of valuables and cash in the malkhana to execute the theft. Khurshid managed to execute his plan flawlessly and could have got away easily but for an alert malkhana incharge who detected that there was something amiss in the warehouse, the police said. The arrested Head Constable was earlier posted in the malkhana but was transferred to East Delhi a few days ago, said an official. "He was aware of the articles kept in the warehouse and also the process to access them," he said. He allegedly timed his theft around his transfer so that the suspicion of the absence of the valuables and cash would fall on his other colleagues in the Special Cell's malkhana. The Special Cell is a specialised unit of the Delhi Police tasked to prevent, detect and investigate cases of terrorism, organised crime and other serious crimes in Delhi. While penal offences committed by policemen are probed by the law enforcers themselves, allegations of misconduct with public are investigated by the Delhi government's Police Complaints Authority. Authority Chairperson Justice Poonam A. Bamba, former Judge of the Delhi High Court, said in the Annual Report 2023-24 that a total of 1,688 complaints were received and carried forward during the period. During the year, 649 cases were disposed of, leaving 1,039 cases pending. The percentage of disposals stood at 38.44 per cent. The Authority is also authorised to probe public complaints related to extortion, land or house grabbing and other incidents involving serious abuse of authority. Complaints of illegal detention, police custody death or rape and grievous hurt in police custody are also probed by the Authority.
