2019 Jamia Violence: Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Respond To Plea Seeking Transfer of Probe To Independent SIT

In the Jamia Millia Islamia violence case, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked the Centre to file a reply within a week to the amendment application seeking transfer of investigation in the FIRs registered against the students and on their complaints against police officials, from Delhi Police to an independent agency.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh listed the matter for hearing on December 13. Meanwhile, the bench also adjourned the matter seeking FIR against various political leaders for their alleged hate speeches during the Northeast Delhi riots, to December 19. 

The application on which Centre's response has been sought also prays for constitution of an independent SIT headed by any of the officers among a panel of four officers comprising of Vibhuti Narain Rai, Vikram Chand Goyel, RMS Brar and Kamlendra Prasad.

The Supreme Court on October 19 had requested "the High Court to hear out the matter early having regard to the fact that these matters are pending before the High Court for some time now."

During the resumed hearing of the matter before the division bench, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves - who represents one of the petitioners, submitted that the case had earlier been substantially heard by another bench. "... then it was made de-part heard. The matter hasn't started for 2.5-3 years. The incident is of December 2019. We are happy to start again but we want to start at some stage," Gonsalves added.

Giving a background of the matter, Gonsalves submitted that the students had gathered at the gate of Jamia for a peaceful march to parliament to protest against the CAA and NRC.

"They were told they cannot march even peacefully and then even before anything could transpire, what did happen is a very brutal attack on the students, of the kind not seen in the city for a long time. Merciless beating ... and it is now documented well, they fractured the bones of many students, blinded one and went into the girls hostel who were also beaten mercilessly, went into the library ...," he submitted. 

The court at this stage asked the senior counsel about the prayers which have not been rendered infructuous.

In respect of one of the prayers Justice Singh also asked, "after three years, which CCTV footage survives. After three years, they are still preserving that CCTV footage? Is there an interim order in this? After three years, from where will be find this? So matter ends there. So G [prayer], we can't grant. If it is not is there, it is not there".

Gonsalves responded that police would have to answer regarding the CCTV footage.

The court recorded in the order that some of the prayers have been rendered infructuous with the passage of time. The surviving prayers seek court-monitored investigation and monetary compensation.

Further, Gonsalves told the court that an amendment application has also been filed for specific prayers. Advocate Rajat Nair, representing the police, submitted that the application has not been allowed yet. The court said it would have to first determine the scope of the proceedings.

When the court was told no reply has been filed to the application even after issuance of notice, it said, "so we will give you [Centre] till next week to file a reply to this application".

Title: NABILA HASAN & ORS vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR and other connected matters