It has been five years since the February 2020 Delhi pogrom, and the lives of those affected remain in limbo, caught between loss, grief, and the absence of justice. The scars of the violence remain, and unless justice is served, they will likely continue to haunt both the victims and the city.
The communal violence exposed deep fault lines in society, and the wounds from the violence in northeast Delhi still linger. Between 23 and 26 February 2020, 53 people were killed, over 500 injured, and property worth crores was destroyed. Of those who died, reportedly 40 were Muslims and 13 were Hindus.
The violence erupted amid clashes between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which was passed by the current BJP-led government in December 2019, sought to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan — with the exclusion of Muslims and Jews.
The Act triggered widespread protests across India. The violence began in Jaffrabad, northeast Delhi — where women were staging a sit-in protest against the CAA on the Seelampur-Jaffrabad-Maujpur Road — and also wreaked havoc in Khajuri Khas, Bhajanpura, and Gokulpuri areas.
The Delhi Minority Commission Report later accused Delhi Police of unreliable and biased investigations, which ultimately led to actual culprits getting away and innocent people, primarily Muslims, being charged for crimes they did not commit. The police deliberately charged people under draconian laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) so they could be incarcerated for longer periods without trial or even bail.
Political rhetoric
It has been alleged that inflammatory speeches by BJP leaders, including current law minister Kapil Mishra, incited the violence. Mishra, a former AAP (Aam Aadmi Party) MLA, later joined the BJP, which won the Delhi assembly elections held earlier this month, defeating AAP. Mishra secured victory in one of the assembly segments affected by the 2020 riots.
The court later criticised the investigating officer (IO) for failing to investigate Mishra’s role in the violence, suggesting that attempts had been made to cover up the BJP leader’s involvement.
And now, what's happening with the cases?
Five years since the riots, verdicts have been delivered in only 109 of the 695 cases related to rioting, arson, and unlawful assembly filed by the police. In total, Delhi Police registered 758 cases.
Of these, 695 were filed at various police stations across northeast Delhi, with 62 investigated by the Crime Branch and one by the Special Cell. Of the 2,619 people arrested, courts have acquitted 183 individuals, dropped charges against 75, and convicted 47. Many are out on bail, with reports suggesting the number could be more than 2,000.
Delhi Police claimed its investigation revealed a “larger conspiracy”, leading them to charge several individuals. The conspiracy is mentioned in FIR 59/2020, in which former Jawaharlal Nehru University is said to be the “mastermind” behind the violence.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad had argued that the violence was part of an orchestrated attempt to create unrest during US President Donald Trump’s visit to India. Analysts also suggest that the BJP’s shock defeat in the February 2020 Delhi assembly elections may have played a role in triggering the unrest.
However, an analysis of five chargesheets spanning more than 30,000 pages, alongside interviews with defence lawyers, reveals serious concerns. There are significant gaps in evidence, with questionable witness statements and allegations that protests were criminalised, leading to accusations being based on tenuous evidence at best.
UAPA woes
One of the most controversial cases being probed by the Special Cell under the stringent UAPA is based on FIR 59. Of the 21 arrested, 18 were charged under the UAPA.
In the case of Ankit Sharma, a 26-year-old Intelligence Bureau officer who was killed in the violence, 11 accused remain in custody. His body was discovered in a drain in Chand Bagh on 26 February 2020.
Khalid Saifi has been granted bail on two charges. The court’s order confirmed that he was not in the rioting crowd, yet the police invoked UAPA to make it harder for him to obtain bail. This ensured his prolonged incarceration despite the absence of a chargesheet, mirroring the fate of several others, including Umar Khalid.
Shoddy investigations and legal backlash
Several local courts in Delhi have repeatedly criticised investigating officers for inadequate investigations and mishandling evidence. In one case, a Delhi court rebuked an officer for using a “manipulated video” to implicate an accused in the violence, highlighting the officer’s unprofessional conduct and the incomplete investigation, particularly in tracing the source of the video.
Additional sessions judge Pulastya Pramachala also criticised the officer for clubbing six complaints in the case without a thorough investigation. In August 2021, additional sessions judge Vinod Yadav reprimanded Delhi Police for their handling of cases related to the riots, including poorly filed chargesheets and the failure of investigating officers to appear in court.
In September 2021, judge Yadav discharged three men accused of rioting, arson, and various offences, stating, “When history looks back at the worst communal riots since Partition in Delhi, it is the failure of the investigating agency to conduct a proper investigation using the latest scientific methods that will torment the sentinels of democracy.” He noted that many of the accused had been in jail for around one-and-a-half years owing to delays in starting their trials, while the police continued to file supplementary chargesheets, wasting judicial time.
In August 2023, a Delhi court acquitted an individual accused of rioting, stating that the police had failed to provide sufficient evidence and had not properly investigated the incidents. The judge remarked that the charges against the accused were based on weak suspicions, with no proof of their involvement in the rioting.
In October 2023, Judge Pramachala asked the police commissioner to conduct an inquiry on the investigating officer for preparing a charge sheet based solely on “hearsay evidence”. This case involved an FIR lodged at Gokulpuri police station during the riots, where multiple individuals were accused of rioting, arson, and unlawful assembly.
In one judgment, the court found that a new statement had been recorded solely to conceal weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and justify the chargesheet. In another case, the court determined that the police had tampered with evidence, presenting only half of a video in court to falsely implicate an innocent person.
Additionally, in a separate verdict, while acquitting the accused, the court noted severe flaws in the investigation, suggesting that two police officers had been used as witnesses merely to create the impression that the case had been solved. In another case, the court stated that the charge sheet had been filed with prejudice to cover up earlier mistakes made during the investigation.
The plight of the accused
Owing to poor investigations, many of the accused are still languishing in jail. In November 2024, the Supreme Court denied bail to Gulfisha Fatima, one of the accused in the violence, but directed Delhi High Court to hear her bail plea expeditiously. Fatima had been in jail for four years, and her bail petition had been pending for a long time.
Similarly, in October 2024, the Supreme Court refused bail to Sharjeel Imam, another riot accused. However, some individuals have been granted bail. In March 2022, Ishrat Jahan, a former councillor arrested under UAPA, was granted bail after her defence argued that the police had no evidence against her.
Again, in June 2021, activists Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and student Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted bail by Delhi High Court, which observed that speeches and protests, even if deemed inflammatory, could not be categorised as terrorist acts.
Umar Khalid's struggle for bail
Khalid Saifi and Umar Khalid, who remain behind bars, continue to fight for bail. Arrested in September 2020, Khalid has been charged with terrorism, rioting, and criminal conspiracy under UAPA. He has faced multiple bail rejections and repeated adjournments.
During a February 2025 hearing, Khalid’s lawyer Trideep Pais argued that merely being part of a WhatsApp group was not sufficient evidence of involvement in the violence. Khalid has now been in custody for close to five years without trial.
The next hearing in his case is scheduled for 4 March 2025.
