2020 Delhi riots: Court junks order to further investigate minister Kapil Mishra
New Delhi: A court on Monday junked an order directing the Delhi Police to "further investigate" the role of Delhi Law Minister Kapil Mishra in the 2020 Delhi riots, saying the order suffered from a "serious jurisdictional error".
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh underlined that judicial orders potentially affecting someone's rights and liberties must be unambiguous and free from conflicting interpretations.
The court, which was hearing two revision pleas filed by Mishra and the Delhi Police, challenging a magistrate's order of April 1 this year, said that the order repeatedly used the word "further investigation", and not once did it direct the investigation and registration of an FIR.
It said, "Judicial orders, especially those affecting rights and potentially affecting someone's liberty, must be unambiguous. Any such order that could impact someone's rights and liberty must be explicit and free from conflicting interpretations."
The magistrate's order directing further probe was regarding a plea filed by the complainant Mohammad Ilyas, who, in a common complaint, detailed five different incidents that occurred on various days in February 2020 during the communal riots, claiming that police officials were either complicit or failed to act.
Judge Singh said, "While the magistrate found that FIRs had been registered for four out of the five incidents, it expressed concerns about how the police handled the fifth incident, dated February 23, 2020, which is referred to as the first incident in the impugned order, questioning the investigation, potential bias and thoroughness."
According to the complaint, the alleged incident took place on February 23, 2020, during the communal riots, in which Mishra and his associates purportedly blocked roads at Kardampuri, vandalised carts belonging to Muslims and Dalits, allegedly with police complicity.
The court said that if the magistrate believed the alleged incident had not been investigated in the FIR registered for the alleged larger conspiracy case, he should have made an explicit observation, besides directing an investigation and the registration of a new FIR accordingly.
It said, "The magistrate could not have ordered such a further investigation because FIR number 59/2020 (larger conspiracy case) was already under trial (in a Karkardooma sessions court) following the submission of a final report."
The court said that the magisterial court, instead of focusing and limiting observations to whether the first incident had been investigated, examined and made observations on matters already under trial before a higher sessions court.
It said, "His (magistrate's) assertion that the prosecution's theory-building had numerous flaws and involved guesswork, assumptions and interpretation prematurely adjudicates the merits of an ongoing trial."
The court said the order suffered from a serious jurisdictional error and was illegal as it directed further investigation into the alleged first incident.
The court said that the magistrate introduced the act of violence by Mishra and his associates despite the complainant not alleging any violence.
It said, "To initiate legal action, the application should have clearly disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence, which it lacks. To assume a cognisable offence, the magistrate relied on analogies and inferences from Kapil Mishra's questioning in the larger conspiracy case."
The court said unwarranted, speculative and prejudicial remarks had been made in the order concerning an investigation pending trial before a higher court.
