Court flags repeated delays by police witnesses in 2020 Delhi riots case

A Delhi court expressed concern over repeated delays in the appearance of police witnesses and the production of case property in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots, saying the lapses were resulting in wastage of court time.

In an order dated 7 July, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh directed that the issue be brought to the notice of the Delhi Police commissioner to ensure the timely presence of police witnesses before trial courts.

"It has been observed that police witnesses are not present before this court at 10 am and usually they appear at 11 am which results in wastage of that much time," the court said, noting that most cases before it are at the evidence stage.

The judge observed that the delay had continued despite similar concerns being recorded during the previous hearing.

The order came after the matter was called twice, but the court was informed that the case property had not been produced by the police. The court later noted that a Special Cell official appeared only at 10.55 am, by which time testimony in another case had already begun. It also recorded that the investigating officer in that matter had arrived late.

The court directed that a copy of its 4 July order be attached while bringing the issue to the notice of the Delhi Police commissioner.

The case relates to allegations of rioting, unlawful assembly and participation in the 2020 Delhi riots in the Dayalpur area of the national capital.

Following the 2020 Delhi riots, several courts scrutinising riot-related cases raised concerns over the quality of police investigations and prosecution.

In multiple bail orders, courts questioned the credibility of evidence, pointed to inconsistencies in the police's submissions and flagged procedural lapses, including delayed arrests, multiple FIRs linked to the same incident, inadequate witness statements and failure to conduct identification parades where required.

In some cases, courts observed that the evidence presented was insufficient to justify continued custody, while the Delhi High Court also criticised aspects of a vigilance inquiry into alleged leaks of investigation material to the media.

Lawyers representing some of the accused argued that the investigations suffered from serious shortcomings and called for an independent inquiry to ensure accountability. The Delhi Police, however, maintained that its probe into the riots was fair and impartial, citing the number of FIRs registered against people from different communities.