The 2020 Delhi riots were not just a failure of policing but a stark revelation of institutional bias and complicity. The Delhi Police, tasked with maintaining law and order, instead became active participants—turning a blind eye to key instigators, fabricating cases against the vulnerable, and, in some instances, directly engaging in brutality. Three recent court orders lay bare the extent of this misconduct. One case highlights how BJP leader Kapil Mishra, whose incendiary speech is widely believed to have triggered the violence, was shielded from any real investigation. Despite a complaint alleging that Mishra led an armed mob and fired gunshots at protestors, the police’s Action Taken Report (ATR) remained silent on his role, prompting the court to question whether the investigating officer deliberately covered up allegations against him. Another case exposes the police’s flawed approach to prosecutions—where six men accused of rioting were acquitted after the court found that key police witnesses had been examined only months later, their testimonies riddled with inconsistencies. Instead of conducting a fair and timely probe, the police seemed intent on scapegoating individuals while avoiding scrutiny of their own failures.
Perhaps most disturbing is the court’s order directing the registration of an FIR against the former SHO of Jyoti Nagar police station for his alleged role in the custodial torture of riot victims. A widely circulated video had already shown police officers beating Muslim men and forcing them to chant nationalistic and religious slogans, yet no action was taken until judicial intervention. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, recounted being brutally assaulted, thrown onto a pile of injured men, and later coerced into signing false statements. The court’s findings make it clear that the police did not just fail to protect riot victims; they actively targeted them. These three rulings, taken together, expose a grim reality—law enforcement in Delhi was not just ineffective during the riots, but in many cases, became complicit in deepening the communal divide. While the courts have intervened, these judgments also serve as a reminder of how easily institutions can be weaponised when accountability is absent.
- The shielding of BJP MLA Kapil Mishra: Delhi Police’s selective investigation
One of the most critical observations made by the court came in the case involving BJP leader Kapil Mishra, whose incendiary speech on February 23, 2020, is widely believed to have instigated violence in North-East Delhi. The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, alleged that he saw Mishra leading an unlawful assembly and firing gunshots at protestors. However, despite these serious allegations, the police’s Action Taken Report (ATR) was completely silent on Mishra’s role. Through his order issued on January 18, 2025, Judicial Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain of the Karkardooma Court pointed out that the investigating officer (IO) had either deliberately avoided probing Mishra’s involvement or actively sought to cover it up. This observation reinforces the perception that Delhi Police has, at times, acted as a shield for politically connected individuals rather than as an impartial law enforcement body.
In the order, the Magistrate observed, “it seems that the IO was more concerned about the police officials and either he failed to make inquiry against the alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra), or he tried to cover up the allegations against the said accused. The ATR is completely silent qua him (Mishra).”
“The principle behind Section 153A IPC is to preserve religious/communal harmony and it is the duty of every citizen that while he enjoys his right to express himself, he preserves religious harmony. This indeed is the positive aspect of Secularism,” the judge said in its order.
The court further stressed that public figures like Mishra bear a higher responsibility to act within the constitutional framework and not make statements that disrupt communal harmony. This order underscores how the police failed in their duty to investigate a politician accused of inciting violence while aggressively pursuing cases against others.
“The alleged accused no.3 (Kapil Mishra) is in public eyes and is prone to more scrutiny; such persons in the society direct the course/mood of the public at large and thus, responsible behaviour within the ambit of the Constitution of India is expected from such persons,” the Court said.
The order may be read here.
- Dubious prosecutions: Acquittal of Six Accused Due to Flimsy Evidence
In another case, on February 3, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala acquitted six individuals accused of being part of a riotous mob that engaged in arson and destruction in Gokalpuri. The court found serious lapses in the prosecution’s case, particularly the unreliable testimonies of two police witnesses, Assistant Sub-Inspectors Vanvir and Jahangir. The officers claimed to have identified the accused in videos but were only examined in December 2020—almost ten months after the riots. The court noted that if the officers had already known the accused, as they claimed, there was no need for them to identify them in videos later. Additionally, one of them failed to even recognise three accused individuals in court.
“If they knew the names of the accused persons and if they had seen these persons in the mob of rioters, then there was no need and occasion for them to identify the accused persons in any video,” it said.
This case illustrates how the Delhi Police sought to frame individuals using questionable evidence while failing to investigate more pressing allegations against political figures and police personnel. The delay in examining key witnesses and the lack of credible identification further point to the possibility of wrongful arrests and politically motivated prosecutions.
“This delay in examining these two police officials, who were posted in the same police station, certainly casts doubt over the veracity of the prosecution’s case. The investigating officer did not tender any reason for such delay in recording the statement of these witnesses,” the Court said, as per a report in Bar&Bench.
- Police complicity in custodial violence: FIR ordered against former SHO
Perhaps the most egregious case of police misconduct came in the case involving the custodial torture of riot victims, including Faizan, a young Muslim man who later died from his injuries. A widely circulated video from the riots showed Delhi Police personnel beating injured Muslim men and forcing them to sing the national anthem and chant slogans like “Jai Shri Ram” and “Vande Mataram.” The brutality captured in the footage was emblematic of the communal bias and impunity with which certain officers acted during the riots.
The complainant, Mohd. Wasim, provided a chilling account of how he was beaten, thrown onto a pile of other injured victims, and later taken to Jyoti Nagar police station, where the then-SHO and other officers continued to torture them. He was allegedly forced to sign false statements and give misleading accounts to the media under police pressure. Despite such grave allegations, the Delhi Police refused to act until a court intervened. In its order, Magistrate Udbhav Kumar Jain ordered the registration of an FIR against the former SHO under serious charges, including wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and deliberate religious insult.
“Clearly, the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar, Mr. Tomar (complete name with post not provided) and other unknown police officials engaged themselves in hate crimes against the complainant/victim and they cannot be protected under the garb of sanction as alleged offences committed by them cannot be said to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge if their official duty,” the Court added, as per Bar&Bench.
“Current SHO is directed to depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Inspector to conduct investigation in the present matter and role of other unknown police officials involved in the commission of alleged offences,” added the court.
The court categorically rejected the police’s argument that the accused officers were merely performing their official duties, stating that hate crimes committed by those in uniform cannot be excused under the guise of law enforcement.
“FIR be registered under sections 295-A/323/342/506 IPC against the SHO PS Jyoti Nagar (Mr. Tomar) who was holding the said post in February-March 2020,” the order stated.
This judgment reaffirms the necessity of accountability for custodial violence, particularly in cases where state institutions themselves become perpetrators of communal violence.
The larger picture: A systemic failure
Taken together, these three orders expose a systemic failure in policing during the 2020 Delhi riots. The courts have repeatedly highlighted:
- Selective investigation: While cases against political figures like Kapil Mishra were ignored, others were prosecuted with flimsy or fabricated evidence.
- Complicity in violence: Police personnel not only failed to control the riots but, in some instances, actively participated in violence and custodial torture.
- Bias in legal proceedings: Individuals from marginalised communities were falsely implicated, while officers and politicians aligned with the ruling party enjoyed impunity.
The Delhi Police’s actions—or lack thereof—during and after the riots raise serious concerns about institutional bias and political interference in law enforcement. These court observations serve as a crucial indictment of a law enforcement agency that has repeatedly been accused of favouring one side in communal conflicts. While the judicial interventions are significant, they also expose the limitations of legal remedies in the absence of genuine political will for police accountability and reform.
Related:
Brinda Karat on the Third Anniversary of Delhi Riots- “Cannot Abandon Struggle for Justice”
Did Nand Kishore Gurjar admit to role in North East Delhi riots?