Delhi High Court Rejects Pleas for FIRs Over 2020 Riots Hate Speeches
The court cited 'political selectivity' in petitions and found no exceptional circumstances for an independent probe into the 2020 Delhi riots or Jamia Millia Islamia violence.
The court cited 'political selectivity' in petitions and found no exceptional circumstances for an independent probe into the 2020 Delhi riots or Jamia Millia Islamia violence.
· Updated
The Delhi High Court has refused to order the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against several political leaders concerning alleged hate speeches made during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The court observed that the petitions appeared to single out individuals and speeches with a degree of "political selectivity."
In its decision, the court also declined to mandate a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or an independent inquiry into the riots. Judges stated that the petitions did not present any exceptional circumstances that would justify "extraordinary judicial intervention."
The court heard multiple petitions filed in 2019 and 2020 regarding the alleged speeches. A bench noted that in some instances, only partial excerpts of the speeches in question were submitted as evidence.
Regarding the violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, the court also rejected pleas for an inquiry into alleged police misconduct. The court stated that the police did not enter the university campus initially to address what was described as a peaceful assembly.
The court acknowledged that 757 criminal cases were registered in connection with the riots. As of February 19, 2026, investigations had been transferred in 65 cases, charge sheets filed in 369 cases, 212 cases were pending in criminal courts, and 249 cases remained under investigation.
FAQ
Why did the Delhi High Court reject the petitions for FIRs?
The court rejected the petitions because it found evidence of 'political selectivity' in how certain individuals and speeches were targeted and determined there were no exceptional circumstances for extraordinary judicial intervention.
What was the court's stance on an independent probe into the riots?
The court declined to order an SIT or independent probe into the riots, stating that the petitions did not disclose any exceptional circumstances warranting such action.
