N-E Delhi riots: High Court directs Commissioner to fix responsibility for media leaks

New Delhi: After the Delhi Police in two consecutive hearings, tiptoed on fixing responsibility for the leak of a supplementary chargesheet in a north-east Delhi riots case even before cognizance, Justice Mukta Gupta of the Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Commissioner to file an affidavit fixing responsibility on the person instrumental in leaking the information to the media.

The direction came while the high court was hearing a plea filed by Jamia Millia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha, who has been arrested in a UAPA case for the riots, and has sought an independent inquiry into the leaks that led to media reports on an alleged "disclosure" statement that is inadmissible as evidence.

In previous hearings, advocate Siddharth Aggarwal had argued for Tanha, saying that if the media house refused to disclose its source and the point of origin (Delhi Police) says it does not know how the leak happened, then the next logical step was to set up an inquiry.

However, the Delhi HC had heavily criticised the Delhi Police for a shoddy vigilance report that it had prepared on the leaks.

In Friday's hearing, the court said, "It is a proved allegation (of leakage) once it comes in media. It no more remains an allegation now. You have to ascertain who has done it."

Advocate Amit Mahajan, representing the Delhi Police, maintained that the contents of the supplementary charge sheet were not leaked to the media by the police.

To this, the high court said it was "a property in the hands of a police officer and if your officer has leaked it, it's abuse of power, if for sanction this was entrusted to someone else, it's criminal breach of trust and if the media has taken it away then it's a theft. So in any case, an offence is made out".

While directing a fresh affidavit and inquiry report on the leak, the judge said, "We will see if they can do indirectly what they can't do directly... don't do the inquiry as done by you earlier, you will have to answer the contentions of petitioner's counsel".

The high court listed the matter for further hearing on March 25.