Investigation Has Been Tardy & Sketchy: Delhi HC In Case Of 23-Yr-Old’s Death During 2019 CAA Protests
The Delhi High Court in the case of death of Faizan, a 23-year-old young man during the CAA [Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019] protests in certain parts of Delhi, said that the investigation in this case has been tardy and sketchy.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of the deceased alleging that her son died at the hands of Delhi Police by reason of unlawful use of force and authority.
A Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani remarked, “Without making too much of a harsh comment, this court is constrained to observe that the investigation in the present case has evidently been tardy, sketchy, and conveniently sparing of the persons who are suspected to be involved in brutally assaulting the petitioner’s son. What is worse is that the suspects were entrusted to act as custodians of the law, and were in a position of power and authority, but seemed to have been driven by bigoted mindsets.”
The Bench said that what the Delhi Police have done so far is “too-little, too-late.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Factual Background -
The case arose in the backdrop of protests that were on-going since mid-December 2019 in certain parts of Delhi, including North-East Delhi, in the context of promulgation of CAA. The petitioner’s son Faizan died on the intervening night of February 26, 2020 and February 27, 2020. The respondents were respectively the Department of Home, Government of NCT of Delhi, and Investigating Officer of the Special Investigation Unit who was presently in-charge of the investigation into Faizan’s death.
The principal prayer in the petition was for the court to issue a direction constituting a ‘fresh’ Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior police officers with demonstrably unblemished record and credibility to carry out an independent, impartial, professional, and time-bound investigation into Faizan’s death. The petitioner also prayed that the Court shall monitor the investigation by calling for periodic status reports/action taken reports. She further sough other consequential and ancillary reliefs.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “It is extremely important to note that this case presents allegations of gross violation of human rights, inasmuch as the unlawful actions of the policemen, who are yet to be identified, were motivated and driven by religious bigotry and therefore would amount to a ‘hate-crime’.”
The Court emphasised that expeditious, fair, and complete investigation is the sine-qua-non of a fair trial and as held by the Supreme Court, a fair investigation, and not just a fair trial, is now considered part of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
“It must be recorded here that this court has refrained from engaging in any detailed consideration of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer so far, some of which has been shared with the court during hearings ‘in-chambers’, lest further future investigation in the matter be compromised, or the trial be prejudiced”, it said.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the leitmotif “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”, must not be limited only to court proceedings, but must also apply proprio-vigore to investigation of crime and the investigation must also be seen to be fair and just, failing which, the credibility of the justice dispensation system would suffer and the faith in the judicial process would be eroded.
“In the present case, apart from the fact that the custodians of the law are themselves accused of having committed its breach, the perpetrators of the offence are themselves members of the agency that is investigating them. This situation does not inspire confidence. To add to this are the various anomalies and aberrations noticed in the investigation carried-out by Delhi Police so far, some of which have been highlighted above. In the opinion of this court, transfer of investigation is necessitated in the present case, to guard the credibility of the investigation and to instil confidence in the victims as to the fairness of the process, if for no other reason”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition and directed the transfer of investigation to CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
Cause Title- Kismatun v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Home Department & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5390)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, and Devika Tulsiani.
Respondents: SPP Amit Prasad, Advocates Ayodhya Prasad, Ruchika Prasad, Kavya Agarwal, and Chanya Jaitly.
