1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases : Appeals Have To Be Filed Seriously, Not For The Sake Of It, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 10) agreed to hear in detail a petition seeking the implementation of the recommendations of the Justice SN Dhingra Committee regarding the 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases.

Justice Dhingra committee, constituted by the Supreme Court in 2018, had submitted its report in January 2020 opining that the investigation was derailed in several riot cases and recommended, among others, the filing of appeals against acquittals. Although the Delhi police filed appeals against acquittals, the Delhi High Court dismissed them on the ground of delay.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Delhi Police, informed a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan that letters have been written to the prosecuting agencies to file Special Leave Petitions. Two SLPs were filed and 6 SLPs are to be filed in six other cases, she added.

"Filing SLP won't serve any purpose unless filed seriously and prosecuted seriously," Justice Oka said. "We just want to know, earlier matters were also filed. Whether there was any senior counsel engaged to argue the matter? It has to be done seriously, not for the sake of it," Justice Oka added. The petitioner's lawyer, Senior Advocate HS Phoolka, remarked that appeals were filed "just as a formality."

Justice Oka expressed that the appeals must be filed earnestly and with seriousness. “We are not on any particular outcome, but it must be pursued earnestly and with seriousness,” Justice Oka said.

ASG undertook that the law officers will pursue the appeals seriously.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that there was a judgment of Justice Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court which observed that there was a "great cover-up" in the 1984 riots cases and that the State did not prosecute the matters properly. However, this judgment was not placed before the Delhi High Court in the appeals, he stated.

Justice Oka asked the petitioner to produce the judgment and said that the bench will peruse it. The petitioner's counsel submitted that in one murder cas, of the 56 accused, charges were framed only against 5 and other 51 were discharged. The petitioner submitted that the State must frame charges against the other accused. In many cases of murder and gang-rapes, no trial took place due to closure reports filed by the agencies, the petitioner said.

The bench said that it will hear the matter in detail, instead of doing it in a “piecemeal” manner and posted it to February 17. 

“First we will peruse the judgment. What we do is, this can't go piecemeal, we will give a date on a non-miscellaneous day, address us on the grievances, we need not address individual cases,” Justice Oka said.

The bench was hearing an Article 32 petition filed by S Gurlad Singh Kahlon in 2016. It was in this petition that the Court formed the committee led by Justice Dhingra.

Case : S Gurlad Singh Kahlon v Union of India | WP (Crl) 9/2016