Overview
The Delhi High Court listed for hearing on December 11 a batch of petitions seeking independent SIT investigations into the 2020 North East Delhi riots, registration of FIRs against politicians for alleged hate speeches, and action against errant police officials. A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain asked why the parties cannot approach the Supreme Court and file impleadment applications in a case pending there, which is based on the same material and facts.
Parties and Pleas
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for petitioner Shaikh Mujtaba, described the prayers: seeking FIRs against BJP leaders Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma, and Abhay Verma for alleged hate speeches that incited the riots, and action against errant police personnel.
Arguments and Bench Response
During arguments, Nair noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court order is pending before the Supreme Court and that all prayers in the batch are covered by the plea pending there. The bench suggested moving the Supreme Court and filing impleadment applications there, stating the relief sought is the same and based on the same material.
“Because it is the same relief, based on same material. Why two hearings on same matter? You can be impleaded there and argue and raise it there.”
Implications
The judges indicated that since the material and relief overlap, parties might be better served by pursuing impleadment in the Supreme Court, potentially avoiding duplicate hearings at the High Court level.
Notes
The article cites remarks by the judges and outlines the procedural posture regarding petitions for SIT probes, FIRs against politicians for hate speeches, and departmental actions against police officials in connection with the Delhi riots.
Author’s Summary
Delhi High Court weighs efficiency of reliefs by redirecting petitions to the Supreme Court for impleadment, citing identical material and aims regarding SIT probes, FIRs for hate speeches, and police accountability.