New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Delhi government regarding the recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its 2020 report on the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019.
The violence was related to protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain directed the Delhi government to file its response “within two weeks.”
The bench also allowed the Delhi Police to “submit the original complaint filed before the NHRC along with relevant documents.”
The court addressed a plea filed by several students of Jamia Millia Islamia who claimed to have been attacked by the Delhi Police during the violence.
One of the petitioners who was a law student at the time, had filed a complaint before the NHRC. The NHRC report characterised the protest as an “unlawful assembly” that warranted police action.
The NHRC’s recommendations included compensation for the injured students and appropriate action against the police officers involved.
During the recent hearing, Delhi Police’s SPP Rajat Nair informed the court that none of the alleged victims of the violence was presently traceable.
He stated that action and inquiry were initiated against the erring police officials but emphasised that the police had used “commensurate” force against the students when violence erupted.
The court was also told that the NHRC had concluded its inquiry and given recommendations, suggesting that a similar plea before the High Court seeking relief cannot be entertained.
The matter, along with other petitions related to the violence, has been listed for a hearing on March 14.
Responding to the plea, the Delhi Police confirmed last year that CCTV footage from cameras inside and outside the university and New Friends Colony area was collected in a timely manner and duly preserved.
The police had opposed the petitioner’s request for the transfer of investigation from Delhi Police to an independent agency, arguing that it sought to expand the scope of the plea and was based on a “new cause of action.”
The Supreme Court, on October 19 of the previous year, had requested an early hearing from the High Court, considering the prolonged pendency of the matters.