By Betwa Sharma
New Delhi: “There are numerous flaws in such theory building and many (sic) guesswork”. There are “assumptions and interpretations” that are “questionable”.
These were some of the observations a judge made in an order passed on 1 April 2025 about the conspiracy case filed by the police after the 2020 Delhi riots, aimed at identifying those responsible for the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February that year.
The additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) of the Rouse Avenue Court, Vaibhav Chaurasia, said that the chargesheet—the record of the investigation—contained “opinions” and “academic jargon” and several police interpretations could be viewed differently.
The riots claimed 53 lives, and the observations are significant because, even though a lower court magistrate made them and they are not binding on other courts, this marks the first instance in three years since comments by the Delhi High Court that a judge has criticised the police case, questioning their allegations and the rationale behind them.
The magistrate made these observations in his order dated 1 April 2025 while directing the police to examine further a five-year-old complaint lodged by Mohammed Ilyas from Yamuna Vihar against Delhi law minister Kapil Mishra.
Ilyas accused Mishra of obstructing the road and damaging carts owned by Muslims and Dalits on 23 February in northeast Delhi.
The news regarding the order to probe Mishra received significant coverage, while the magistrate’s comments on the alleged larger conspiracy case—FIR 59—did not.
In response to the complaint, the police presented the chargesheet and evidences from FIR 59, which included WhatsApp messages from the alleged conspirators, to the judge, emphasising their stance that it was not Mishra but rather those participating in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, who instigated the riots.
The magistrate’s observations that the case has “numerous flaws,” “guesswork,” and “assumptions” support Article 14’s reporting that law enforcement has constructed a case based on assumptions and conjectures, aiming to attribute the riots to those opposing the CAA despite scant evidence.
This story was originally published in article-14.com. Read the full story here.
