Delhi riots 2020: Why many police cases are falling apart

Five years after the deadly religious riots in Delhi, the capital of India, the legal proceedings against those involved are still ongoing. A BBC Hindi analysis reveals that in violence-related cases where courts have delivered verdicts, over 80% have resulted in acquittals or dismissals of charges, highlighting a concerning trend in the justice system.

In February 2020, clashes erupted between Hindus and Muslims over a controversial citizenship law, resulting in the deaths of over 50 people, mostly Muslims. The violence, the worst the city had seen in decades, lasted for days, with mobs setting fire to hundreds of homes and shops, leaving a trail of destruction and despair.

The BBC had previously reported on police brutality and complicity during the riots. Police denied any wrongdoing and claimed in their investigation that the violence was "pre-planned" and part of a larger conspiracy by those protesting the law to "threaten the unity of India." They registered 758 cases, arresting over 2,000 people, including 18 student leaders and activists, who were arrested in a case dubbed the "main conspiracy case." They were charged under a draconian anti-terror law that makes it nearly impossible to obtain bail. Within five years, only six have been released, with some, like activist Umar Khalid, still in jail awaiting the start of their trial, illustrating the slow pace of justice.

BBC Hindi investigated the status of the 758 cases related to the riots and analyzed 126 cases in which Delhi's Karkardooma Court had delivered verdicts. In these 126 cases, over 80% resulted in acquittals or dismissals of charges because witnesses became uncooperative or did not support the prosecution's allegations. Only 20 cases resulted in convictions. Under Indian law, a defendant is discharged when the court closes a case due to insufficient evidence, without a trial. An acquittal means the court found the defendant not guilty after a full trial, demonstrating the high bar for conviction.

Data obtained through India's Right to Information Act shows that of the 758 cases filed for murder, only one resulted in a conviction and four in acquittals. A detailed analysis of these 126 orders also revealed that in dozens of cases, courts severely criticized Delhi Police for negligence in their investigations. In some cases, the courts criticized the police for filing "pre-determined charge sheets" that "falsely implicated" the accused. In these 126 cases, police officers often appeared as witnesses to the events. However, the courts deemed their testimony unreliable for various reasons, undermining the prosecution's case.

In two orders, a judge said he "could not restrain" himself from saying that when history reviews the riots, the "failure of the investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation" will "haunt the sentinels of democracy." The court was hearing charges of arson and robbery against three men but ultimately found they had been arrested without any "real or effective investigation." Delhi Police did not respond to the BBC's request for comment. In a report submitted last April, police told the court that all investigations were conducted in a "credible, impartial, and fair" manner, a claim that is now under scrutiny.

However, the testimony of some of the accused, and even the court's own observations, have cast doubt on the investigations. Shadab Alam, who spent 80 days in jail, said he would never forget the horror of the riots. He and several others took refuge on the rooftop terrace of a pharmacy where he worked. Just hours earlier, police had come to the store and asked them to close because of the arson taking place. "Suddenly, they [the police] came again and took some of us into their vehicles," he told the BBC. When he asked the police why they were taking him, he said, they accused him of being involved in the riots. "They asked our names and beat us. Almost everyone arrested was Muslim," Mr. Alam said. He added that he submitted his medical report to the court, confirming three injuries, which raises questions about the treatment of detainees.

In the official report, police accused Mr. Alam and 10 other Muslims of burning down a shop. But the court dismissed the charges against all of them even before the trial began. In its observations, the court criticized the police investigation, saying the witnesses' statements were likely "artificially prepared" and that it was "highly probable" the shop was burned down by "a mob of the Hindu community." The court said police did not investigate the case in that direction, even though they were present at the scene. Mr. Alam had to wait four years for the case to be officially closed. "All this happened during the Covid period. It was during the lockdown. We were in a state of frenzy," said Alam's father, Dilshad Ali. "In the end, nothing was proven. But we had to spend a lot of time and money to prove our innocence." He said the family hopes to receive financial compensation for their losses. "If the police have made false accusations against my son, then action should be taken against them," he added, calling for accountability.

In another case, the court acquitted Sandeep Bhadti, who was accused of dragging and beating a Muslim man during the riots. Police submitted two video clips to prove that Mr. Bhadti was the culprit. But in court, his lawyer said police submitted an incomplete video to frame his client. In the full video, which the BBC has verified, Mr. Bhadti is seen rescuing the Muslim man, not beating him. In its January ruling, the court ruled that police had "manipulated" the video to "implicate" Mr. Bhadti instead of pursuing the "real culprits." The court also asked the Delhi Police Commissioner to take appropriate action against the investigators in the case. Police did not respond to BBC Hindi's questions about whether action had been taken. Mr. Bhadti, who spent four months in jail, declined to comment, saying he did not want to discuss his "suffering," highlighting the lasting impact of the ordeal.

With so many acquittals, former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur said the prosecution and police "should sit back and reflect on what they have achieved in five years." He also said that "accountability also needs to be fixed on the prosecution if arrests are found to be illegal or unnecessary." He added: "If the prosecution puts somebody in jail because they are entitled to do so, or because they want to do so, they should not get away with it if the incarceration is found to be illegal or unnecessary," emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the legal processes.

Even as some cases fall apart in court, many of those arrested remain in jail awaiting trial. Gulifsha Fatima, a 33-year-old PhD student, is one of 12 activists accused of being "conspirators" in the riots who remain in jail. Her family says police have also filed three other cases against her, in all of which she has been granted bail. But she continues to face imprisonment in a fourth case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) - a draconian anti-terror law that sets extremely challenging conditions for bail. "Since she went to jail, every time there has been a hearing, we have hoped that she will finally be able to come out," her father, Syed Tasneef Hussain, told the BBC. In Ms. Fatima's case, after hearing months of bail requests, the judge at the Delhi High Court was transferred in 2023, and now the entire case is being reheard. "Sometimes I wonder whether I will ever see her again, or whether I will die before that," Mr. Hussain said, expressing his deep concern and uncertainty.