Report of advisory committee to chief minister of delhi on nov 1984 killings

,•..•...... ..••...........•.•....................•.•••.•..•..•..•..•..•• -.-- ..... -•.••••.........•....••.•• ...... -..............

-..... e.-.......................... ....------.... .,. ,': ..... ..,.,.--'.. ... ....,.,.......

OF ~ ....,-.,'"..-.. .'....-..... ......tI'-,-,----.. .,-.~

~.

tI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

to'-

tI' e

.,,-

~

_,e

_••

~

•• -

!se

_,a

~

:::

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

.....,.,--.....•••"-••• •••• •• _

:::

...-'......

-...'"..

• tI • •

~

TO

...-

•••• •• •• ... .'

•

.' . tI'... §E THE CHIEF MINISTER OF DE' L HI lE .....-......-.. .'.... ..,.,::: (ON NOV. 1984 KILLINGS) ::: .....tI'·--.'•••... ...

-.'... .......,.,---.-.... ,.

R.S. NaNIa ..:::- Justice .,.

Gen. J.S. Aurora .....,: " ..' ',. ...',. ..:::.,'' J""stfce U.R. .....,'' '" '" .,' ..' . tI'-

,,-

•••

tI • •

,-

,-

Chairman

:::

"

:::

..

::: '" ::: '" '" "

:::. Lt. .,

::: Justice D.V. Sehgal lalit

::: Dr. Maheep Singh

"

,•• '

..

'

.::="

Adarsh Goel ~

VI render Singh J o h a r "

-"

::: ••, "e "'MSButII " '" .,' .. a a ,,' '" ,.' '" •• ' H•.

S Ph Ik '" ", 1OOa ' .. ,, '" '" , '" .••...•.......•........................•..•........................• ..................................... ........................... . '"

....

."••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. ~

~

COMMmEE SETIING UP OF THE ADVISORY COMMITIEE INTRODUCTION

This Advisory Commn •• was constituted on t6th December, tgg3 by Shri Madan LaJ Khurana, Chief Minister of Delhi to suggest coUrse of action and steps to be taken to expeditiou sly punish the guilty of November t964 killings in Delhi.

2. The government has admitted a total number of 2733 killings of.

Innocent Sikhs during the carnage in first 3 days of November t 984 in Delhi alone, It has been noticed and observed by all mo.t 'af{ the Co·mmi.sions and Committees that a large number ofcases of muroorand other henleu. crimes have not be.n regsitered by the police, and that even from amongst those cases which have been regsitered, investigations have not been conducted properly In a larg\> number of them. ~ has aJsp been observed that the case. which are pending In the court tiave not been prosecuted properly. Consequently only 3 ITlJrder cases are stated to have resulted in conviction during the last 9 years. The cales retating to the persons in authority and the political leaders, have.not been pursued, and hurdles have been created in their prosecution at every stage and in every possible manner, 3.FDf all these years Govemme", has violated the salutary principles of Criminal Jurisprudence emphasised by their Lo.rdships of the Sypreme Court of India , in the fdllowing words ,wh~elaylng down the law on the subject In ·Malhendra SI(l9h V8fllUS State of West Bengal· (AIR 1973 SC 2299) ::.

"Undue delay In tha final di.posal of criminal caslls tends to some extent \D defeat the very purpose of crimnal Justice.

Speedy disposal of aimnal .case. fOr commission 01 offences pwmotes confidence of the society In 1I1e admnis)artIon of criminal justice which i. essential for .suatain/ng the faith of the I~ .abiding me",'",,, cI the socioly In the elfOClivene .. of the rule of the law· 4. newly Con.1iUed GoWorw, 8nt 01 Delhi he'for'IIie first time risen to 'the ooc.~1on ond ."P,ntY, ,i ed iii. "_ssili to punish ,the gui~ of

The

x¥ ••

. therefor~ '

~~e

as expeditiou.s1y as , possible: and has constituted this J\dvi$ory Comminoe comprised of the loHowing members:

1. Julllk:e R.S. Na"II.

Chairnwn

Former Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Me'mber of Citizens Justice COmlJlitte.. .

2. Lt. Gen J.S. Aurora (Retd.)

Member

Former Member of Parliament and Member of C~izens Justice Com- . mittee. Presiden~ The sikh Forum

3. Shri D.V. 58191 Former Judge,

~njab

Member & Haryana High Court.

4. SM U.R. lalit

Member

Former Judge, Bombay High Court.

5. Dr. Maheep Singh

Member

Emfnent Writer Editar· SANCHETNA •

6. Shri Adar.1i Goel

Membar

Advocate, Supreme Court 01 India 7. Shri Virender Singh Johar

Membar

Industrialist and Social Worker·

8. Sl1.ri M.S. Butalia

Mambar

Advocate & Member, Legal Aid Comminee lor Riot Victims.

9. Shri H.S. Phoolka

Mamber.Socretary

Advocate, Former Centaral 'lovernment Standing Counsej, Con· venor, Citizens Justice Committee and Memller 01 Legal Aid Commneelor Riot Victims.

The Advisory Committee has been asked to subm~ Its first report within four weeks i.l. by 16th January, 1994 hence this report.

BACKG~OUND

AND BRIEF FACTS

5. First week of November 1984 experienced the worst violence and carnage in thi pistory ollndependant India. Though the violence on the same panern took Place In all the Congress· ruled States of the country, the killings, arson and

loOt in

Oelhi was ~nprecedented

in Its extensiveness as well as

0'

intensity, It took place almost in every corner the Metropolis The killings were directed mostly against poor and defenceless Sikhs. The arson and loot was directed against the houses and the commercial establishments owned

by Sikhs of means. Th~y were mercilessly beaten , burnt alive and killed In thousands . When the possibility of identification of the criminals by recovery of looted property from th,eir posssession assumed some proportion, the police issued public Ofders that if those having such property pile it upon the roads, no actions would be taken. against them for possession of stolen property. This was a blatant violatiioo of the law and was a patent step to h~p the criminals, 6.During the first three days of November, there was not even a semblance of ~ny concern by the authorities for those who were suffering in the massive . In-coming trains to Delhi were stopped in nearby Railway Stations in Haryana and U,P. and· Sikh passengers were picked out, beaten mercilessly, p~ed up and torched. False rumours were spread against the Sikh Community. The entire tragic episode was cismissed and sought to be brushed aside by the govemment as if It was only a ripple on the surface 0( the secvlar democracy, But tht:J picture showed as if the w~le viotence had been or~ ganised by the ruling party and the whole' thing was the handiworl< of some highly placed people who had during those three tateful days, ca"sed a deliberate paralysis of the maChinery for maintenance of law and order ~o that the Sikh oommunity receives full blast of the operation "teach a lesson".

.

.

7. Large number of eminent citizens of Delhi imbued with deep concern for human values a~ aJso for the values of secularism and democracy immediately conducted Independant investigations and inquiries to find oUl how the hOfrifying carnage could take place in the metropdlitan capital of the country and coold overwhelm all parts ot the metropolis from midnight'of the 31st October to 3rd of Novemoer, 1984. Mention is made below of some of the reports of those social organlsations:-

(i) Report of the Citizen. Commission.

The Citizens Commission was comprised of the following pe(sons:

Justice S.M. Sikri

Former Chief Justice of India

Shri Badr·Ud·Dio Tyabji

Former Commonweanh Secretary and Vice·Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim Univer·

sity.

Shri Rajeshwar Dayal

Former Foreign Secretary, Vis~ing Fellow, Oxford University.

Shri Govind Narain

Former Governor of Karnataka and Home & Defenc~" Secretary

.

Shri TCA Srinivasvaradan

Former Home Secretary

(ii)Report of Citizen. for Democracy. (C.F.D.) titled 'Truth about Delhi violence"

By Justice V.M. Tarkunde , Professor Ms. Amiya Rae , Shri Aurobindo Ghose & Shri N.D. Pancholi. (iii ) Report of Peoples Union of Civil Uberties (PUCL) andPeoples Union

ofOemocratic Rights (PUDR ) under the caption路 ''WHO ARE THE GUILTY" A copy eam of the abovementioned three reports are annexed and marked as AC I ,II a~d III, These reports' not only give details of the horrifying events locality-wise, but also are unanimous in their cOnclusion that the said carnage was an organised one. One report gave the names of some of those against whom a strong suspicion existed for ':"Ielr role ifl1he organisation of the cam~8. There nevertheless was complete unanimity in respect of the role of the polioe which was, found guilty of negligence and at places of adive oomplidty with the organisers and perpetrators of the crimes .

8 . The prominent cillzens and orga.:'lisatlons demanded setting up of a judicial commission to inquire into the whole episode. No such oommission was however appoint"" at that stage. 'Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) filed a writ petition in the High Court of Deihi seeking tho directions of the Court for appointing a 'commission of inquiry. The government opposed the writ pelition and uhimatefy it was dismissed by a Division Benet, of the Court.

One more writ petition Was filed by a journalist, Mr. Rahul' Kuldeep Bedl praying for directions to take adion against certain police officialS'WhO were negligent in their duties or had actively connived with the airninals. In that writ pe~tion , the government informed the ooun that an inquiry'was being conducted by Shri Ved Marwah Additional Commissioner of PoI~ regarding the role Of police officials during the violence Md the inquiry would be concluded and tho report would be submitted by the end of April 1985. On tho basis of that statement of government counsel,the rourt dismissed the writ petition and asked the pethioner to approach Mr. Ved Marwah.

9 . Ultimat~ly

as a result of and in pursuance of one of the terms of tho Rajiv Longowal accord signed in April. 1985 a commission of inquiry headed by then Supreme Court judge Ranganath Misra was appoinled to inquire Into tho violenCe in Delhi, Kanpur and Bokaro.

After the appointment of ~ara commssion the govemment . ~cfi.rec1ed Shri Ved Marwah Additional CouI"issioner at Police not to procejfd with his inquiry as the Misra Comni"ion 01 InqUiry had since been appointed.

Mr. Marwah who is stated 10 haW hi. inquiry to a large extent by then, could not submit his ca.e to !hose cireclion• .

10.

....,.1

All the documents relating to \he Ved M_ah ioquiry were summoned

by MiSla Commission d Inquiry. tho .. i~ pooc •• lfngs of the immediate inquiry were not made .......,.e even to the Misra Comrrission.

an

Before the Misra Commission the government took • stand that the • Commission could not name the guilty persons because ~ was not a part of its terms of reference .

This is an instance of the governments attitude which confirms the that the then Centraf and Slate Governments trifid to scuttle the inquiry into the carnage at every stage and in eV9rf manner. AJI efforts were made to sheild the guilty and to scuttle the process of law which required to Identify and punish the guilty, in the public and the police. irTllre~

11. All the organisllions which were working for getting justice fpr the victims joined hands together and found one organisation to present the case of the victims and their heirs before the Misra Commission. This organisation was named "Citizen. Ju-'ice Committee" (CJC) Justice SM. Sikri, Former Chief Justice of India was t!1e President of the CJC, Justice' Y-Al. Tlrirunde, Justir:e R.S. NBlVliI, Shrl So/iJ. Sorabjee, Shri Khushw./llrlfSingh. Lt. Gen. J.S: Aurora, Shri Gobinda Alukhottly, Shfi RBjn; Kothari and others were ijs members. All. H.S. PlIooIi. , Advocate was appointed as \he Convenor 01 CJC.

The CJC presented the case of the victims before the Misra Comrris· sion. In fact ali the proceedings of the Misra Commission were conducted at the behest of the CJC in the beginning. The Commission summoned some of the relevant documents and other information on the basis Qf the application filed by the CJC. 12. The role of' the CJC was to effectively assist the Commission to arrive at the truth . Some other organisations also appeared petore the Commission at the behest of \he Congress. Some of the parties appeared before the Commission only with a view to derail the inquiry and help the exonaration of Congressmen against whom speeilic evK1ence 01 participation in the aimes was alleged and sought to be proved by evidence on affidavits cit eye wmesses and effected persons. The Delhi Admin . put in appearance before the Com· , mission and supported the case af the perpetrators of the ai~s and the action and inaction of the police.

-

13_ 639 affidav~ s were filed before Misra Comnission 9Y the victims and eyewitnesses in support 01 the victims .. 2266 affidavits were filed . against the victims in favour of Congress leader. and police. Most of llie affldaYl1s in favour of the ACOJssed were cydostyled in lin iden1icaI proformaa in which onty the particulars of the deponent ....e filled Up by hon!. Most of lhe deponents of those affidavits which were oummoned by !he CommissIon did not appear !>efaethe Comnissioo to support .. elr --.nts. So"", cAt ..,~ who appeared cJsowned theiql\Xpoo1edaflidaYl1s. The Misra Comnistion has heki In ~s repol1 that the eomnisssion was not placing reiance on 1I1ase affidavits.

14_ Towards the end of 1I1e Inquiry Misra Commission _denied the follOWing amongst other rights to 1I1e CJC: (a)_ Right to Cross Exanine the d~ of affidaYl1s in faWlUl of the Con!1'ess or the acQ'ssed persons. _ (b). _Right to inspod the staemont. of 1I1e witne.s.. Sl!nvnoned at 1I1e instance of .CJC, but examined by the Comrrission behind .,. back of 1I1e CJC. (c). Right to in.pect the record produced at 1I1e behest of the CJC. (d) The right to inspect or take copies ofaflldavits filed in fa""ur of 1I1e Congres. or the acx:ussed_ When 1I1e Commission did not agree to give the above mentioned faciNti"", tolhe CJC in contravention_olthe basic principle. of rule of law, 1I1e CJC could not play ~s role effectively and foIJ'1d ~ impossible to fuffI the task taken up by ~in public intereSl.ln those dr:;"mstances, the CJChednooption but to w~draw from the proeeedings as its further partidpation alter pladng on record the reason. fa ~s decision in a written application stating, inter alia that its Inevitable conclusion was that the CJC was in elfeet bei 'g excluded from the Inquiry.

A copy of the written application of the CJC dated -31st March 1966 Is attached hereto and marked AC fV.

Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Comnittee oontirued appearing belae the commission and filed written argument. on behaff of the victims, a copy of the same Is attached hereto and mar1<ed AC V. 15 . The Misra Commission finally submitted "report in August 1966. h was tabled on the floor of the Lok sabha on22nd February, 1967 i.e. after 6 months of ~s submission to the Government.

Some of th.e relevant findings of Justice Rang Nath Misra Commission .are reproduced below for ready reference :(Page 31.)· The Commission accepts the evidence placed before It that most of the mobs were from areas different from where they operated and only a faw local peOple had joined such mobs to faciliiate the operations. In SOrT'lfol areas, however, local people had also organised riotous activities. In the mobs of both types people of dif(ernet communities (not ,being Sikhs) did jQin. the, an~ sodal .. ements mooitored the a~vities of these mobs and played the prindpal role in killing. k>otihg as also arson ......". ,

"ROLE OF POLICE" (Page 33.) "There Is abundant evidence before the Commission that the police on the whole did not behave properly and failed to act as a professional force. Telephone No. to'O which is meant for notifying for police assistance did not respond at all during tt1at period . The' police stations when contacted on telephone ordnarily did not respond and if their was any response it was a plea ot. lnability 10 assist. The behaviour of most policemen was shabby in the . sense that they allowed people to be killed, houses to be burnt, property to be loaled, ladies to be dragged and misbehaved within their very

pres Bnca., .. ,... ,....... .• (Page 34.) .. Though senior police officera have denied that their was any active support or association of police with the crowds and the Commission does not have any definate material against named policemen of haVing played such role, it is difficuh to reject the allegations as baseless. The Co(T1misslon is of the view that detailed investigation/inquiry should 'be under· taken to find out whether some policemen of the Delhi Admn. had not behaved that way. The then Lt. Governor Gavai in his evidence before the Commission ' has stated: "The ,flow of reports of actual happenings was not coming. Lt. Governor'. channel for information was through the establ ishment of the Commissioner of Pofice. • .

(Page 35,) • Additional Commissioner Jatav has told the Commission that he got the information of killings in Kalyan Pun only at 7 PM on November 2nd 1984 and this he checked from his records and stated that Kalyan Pui is 12 KM away from Police Headquarters. As already mentioned, more than 200 p,,?pfe died in the area and on his own showing these took place during the night of November 1st, 1984. Such a brutal incident taking place within a distance of 12 KM from the Headquarters not to be known to the Additional Commissioner of area for well over 16 to 18 hours easily gives the impression that police administration had Virtually become Ineffective during that period.

The version of !hi:! offICer that higher officers were taking rounds has become

ncit acceptable in view of his statement that during that disturbed 'condition the information from Kalyan PV<i a~~a coyld not trav,el to the Police Headquarters.

Th ere are many pockets in the city inhabited by, more of Sikhs with wnch no attempt was made to keep contact either by rounds or otherwise. Jatav has assessed that 25 % of Delhi Police Personnel became indifferent ...... .....

. .. ....... .In answering the question of the Commission as to whether It was 8 case of positive negligence 01 one of ,c allousness or inattention,' Shri Sethi (thenDisn. Magistrate of Delhi) stated: "I do not tIllnk it i. a case of open participation but to .my mind it seems to be a case where under pressure they remained away from duty and teased to be etf@ctive with OJ few exceptions. Some SHO 's were effective and dutiful. About 25 to 30 % of Ihese SHO·. were found effective. All others remained indifferent and did nol come up 101lhe mark.

The Commission wanled a clarificalion as 10 lhe meaning of 'Pressure' and Shri Selhi stated :"1refer 10 local political pre •• ur. bUlln the absence of any positive material I can not name the source of pressure. It is, however, a fact that the police remained ineffective as if something had happened to keep them away from thair duty."

5hri Sethi further slated : "My imprssion is Ihal had the police done the appropriate planning and on 31-10-1984 apprehended that Ihe situation may turn worse, by themselves with a little assistance ancfmoral support from the Army they would have been able to maintain law and ord9f effectively and nothing 10 that extent would have happened."

•

(Page 36) .. In the opinion of the Commission this is a reasonable assessment of the situation. Police Commissioner Tandon should riot have fett

sati sfied Ihat by proroolgation of prohibitory order und9f section 144 Cr. P. C. the situation wou ld be brought under effective control. More of useful planning should have been undertaken and Ihe line of action from the att9fnoon or atleast Ihe nlghl of October 31 1984 should have been different. Some higher police offtcers should have been deputed to move about In different areas to activise the local police and InstUi in them ihe dual sense of duty and confidence. If Ihe Army had to be cal led that matter should not have been def9fred liII the next morning. Killing of Smt. Gandhi was not a small matter and everyone should have reasonably apprehended serious repurcurssion ,

The then Lt. Govr. did have such apprehension as told by him. Since the government had already altered th e Army th" Lt. Govr. and the Police Commission9f should have ca ll ed in the Army and asked them to p.atrol during 1he 31 st evening and night in the sensitive locality, if the right time police action h ad started with a number of police force available the entire situation wou ld have remained under control. Police Commissioner Tandon's own statement Is the best material to rely upon for such condusion , He has said That wherever

the local police behaved. -the situation did nQt 9.0 bad at all or very mudl. It is

not tho stand of Shri Tandon that wherever ttl. l'Qlice are said to have ~ehave like a disciplined force, there was an adequate force available. Therofore, inadequacy of police personnel does not seem to be the real cause. On the O1I1er hand, SIlri Sethi's statement that the police became in<llferent appears to be the real one ............ .... : ......... Law permits use of even fire arms in some evenruajities in seft defence of person and property. • the police were able to COMroi the riotous mob certainly they were entitled In a given situation to temporarily tal<e away the licenced fire arms with a view to easing the situation. But when riotous

mob' could not be contrQlied - and this is the admitted position - in the face of the law authorising the rigtn of priv'!te defence to be exercised wtth the aid of fire arms , if necessary and justified, ~ was not all proper on the pail of the police to.withdrawthe tire arms from some of the people belonging tothegroup whictl was being atta,*ed and thus expose the weaker group to greater risk in 1I1e hands of the rioters. The Commission Is' noIln a position 10 approve 01 this conduct on the part of the police.........

(Page 37)....... "there is evidence whictl the Commission cannot ignore . that on several occasions when fire tenders started moving _to places -of arson on receiving intimation, mobs blocked the passage and held them up or forced them to return. On several occasions this was done in the presence of the

police. ~ is well known that fire tenders have precedence of movement on the roads for they move 10 answer an emergency yet the police <ld not attempl to dear the way.

Several Instances have .coma to be nan'aled where police personnel in uniform were found marching behind or mingled in the crowd. Since they did . not make any aIIempl to stop the roob from inwlg/nil In· criminal acts, an inference has been «awn that they were part of the mob and had the common I"'ention and purpose. Some instances, though lew number, have also been noticed where policemen in uniform have participated In looting .......: (Page 38.) • There is some for... In the allegation 01 OSGMC thai the police had no business to dlange Ihe method 01 recovery 01 stolen goods, Ordinarily, the place where slolen articles are stored - be it a lIOu.. or some other plalle - is ..anchad, recoveries of identilied articles am mede, on the basis 01 sudlleco~eries pro..cution is launched and the possession 01 the identified stolen property constitute. good evidence lor the offence punishable under seclion 411 and 4121PC and provides a presumptive link lor the offence _During the riot. lhe police , .

Instead 01 following thi. known melhod, adopted a novel one 01 Inviting ' ·the culprits 10 pile up the stolon articles in the open, near the house. 'lIom where the removal had been made. ' By this process, the best

evidence linking lhe aCcused With 'lhe onence .vanished. SUch of Ihe .article. Which were rewliled belonged 10 several person. and _re mixed up. Very often" as alleged, they were taken away from 1IIeir by others and.ven by poD_n. Since the CommisSion hes n'1l bien told the /ustlliCIIllon for the adoption' of this novel and uncanny proc:edure , the sugge.1Ion of 'the victim. the! thl. procedure hetd misapproprilllion of 101IIII of the artiCles CIIn nol be ruled out. The Commi.8Ion hils however, no intenllon 10 act路On surmises and leave this .,pactlO be taken up in the inquiry against tII8 police ofIicer. II recommended by it"

.

"SUrprilinilly tha Delhi Admn. has .upported the aCtion of the police and seriously attempted 10 extend cover for tho lapse.. In路the路 wiillan submission on b8haH of the administration reliance has been placed on different provisions of the Punjab Police Rules 1934, whidl perhaps have been kept in force under Secion 149 (1) of the Delhi PoNce Aa, 1978. The Punjab Police Rules were made at a time when the country Was under shacldes of foreign domination. the role of the police under 1IJe foreign Nler was meant 10 be different. Thoilong tine of the 1978 Police Ad says that tt was an Act to amend and consoUdate the law relating to the regulation 01 the police In the Union territory of Delhi. The entire poSition shouid have be revie,!ed when a revamping was attempted by introdJction 01 a n_law and Hthe Punjab Rcj"" were found insufficient, inadequate or archaic to meet the demand. 01 the times, proper rule should have been made. There was no necessity or justillcation to continue those .antiquated rules ..,der the new Act. Want of a riot squad In the Delhi Police has '!Iso be80 I advanced as a justifleat;'" lor \h'e police conduct. The Comrrission noti<:oK with dsapproval such a stand by the administration. Perhaps that could have been advanced as a justification on behalf of Delhi PoNce if tt was being indcated by the Administration, but the administration should not take that starid. By October 1984 riots had b. ",me too frequent in India and under \he e'",,"e or cover III every,available plea b2sed upon econonilc, religious, poIllical and social issues, society was being victinUsedby riots now and then: Deihl and neighbouring places had seen riots on more than one occasion. tt is difflCUtt fOr the Commission to appreciate that the Delhi Admn. had n~ thought ~ appropriate to equip no police with one or more riot squads. The Comrrission is also nOlln a position to appreCiate the stand of the Delhi Admn. that when" happened during 31.t Oc1ober to 3rd NOVember 1984 was not a problem of maintaining law and order but reflecled the sudden and spon"'m8OUs National outburst rulrrinating from the vacuum caused by an unprecedented and never thought of murder of the Prime Minister of India "As already found, what happened was certainly unprec, dented possibly beyond the range of advanced comprehension. The stand that k was a .pofrtaneous national outburst which may be a fad, cannot be used'as a ground to justify the behaviOUr of the Delhi poroce. The spontaneous

national outburst (reiterating the phas ~ 01 th e Delhi Administration) did not bring about the calamity of the type that happened in Delhi in other parts of the country.... ...'¡

(Page 39.) ............The Commission, therefore, is not in a position to acceptthe stand of Delhi Administration on this score taken in the written submission. It is to be remembered that the Delhi Administration took no positive stand in regard to the police conduct when called upon to do so. It led no evidence and aven did not place any document before the Commission unless called for. In the 'written sultmissions certain aspects have been assumed though the relevant evidence has not been placed before the COmmission. This approach to the matter certainly Is not tenable ..... " ........It is in evidence before the Commission that .administrative action was initiated against some of the deliquent police officers. Shri Ved Marwah, tM then Add!. COmmissioner of Police was also asked to inquire into the lapses of police officers during the riots.

Sh. Marwah has told the Commission: .. I was handling an inquiry 10 Ihe lapses 01 police officer. during Ihe Nov. 1984 riots. I had proceeded wilh Ihe inquiry 10 o large extenl bUI some important witnesses had yet to be examined, including the then Commissioner of police. I had been directed to make this administrative inquiry by lhe Commissioner of police bUI he laler directed Ihal Ihe Inquiry may nol proceed in view of lhe facl Ihal a Judicial Inquiry inlo the matter was being undertaken. That is how the matter has not proceeded further".

He has further stated: "As I have just stated, I never came to the final stages of the inquiry but in course Of the inquiry I had come across instances where there was plima facie material to show lapses on the pan some police

officers. Such lapses appeared In respect of DCPs, ACPs, as also SHOs and officers of e...,9n lower ranks". â&#x20AC;˘

At one stage the Commission was indlned 10 go into the lapses, issue notices under section 8 (b) of the COmmission of Inquiry Act andrecordfindings of lapses. but in view of 1he evidence later availabte that the lapses were rampant and several officers of different rank would be Involved if such an inquiry is undertaken, the Commission changed Its approach to the matter.

Such an inquiry would have pro- tracted Ihe proceedings and unusual delay in submission of the Report on the issues referred to the Commission was not considered expedient. Again the Commission has taken into the consideration the position that even a finding under section 8 (b) of the Act is given, it would not bring about suitable punishment for the delinqUency that may be found and further administrative or aimina! action would ' be necessary for such purpose. Keeping all the aspects in view the Commission has not thought it

proper to name anyone of the delinquent. This , however, does not mean that th e Commission is of the vi ew th at the conduct of the dellquent police officers should not be inquired into. On the other hand. the Commission is of the opinion that a proper inquiry should be undertaken. Such a probe is in the Interest of the police as a force as also the administration . The black sheep can be identified and suitably dealt with . The dutiful officers sho.uld be commended.

The defects can be found out and remedied , The morale of the police as a discipfined and profe ssional force can be streamlined on the basis of1he resutt of the inquiry" .......• .

(Page 40.)" On November 25th 1984 hardly three weeks alter the riots, the Marwah Inquiry was set up by ,the Delhi Admn . for findings on : .

(I) identifica~on of incidents of serious failure or n,:!gHgence . if the part of the individual police officers Imen; ,

any. on

(ii ) identrtication of good work, ij any, done by in~vidual police of· ficerslmen so that they oeuld be suitalbly rewardad:

(iii) identification of defK:iencies and limitation of man power and equipment of the police force and suggestions as to measure to tone up the function ing of the police to meet the challenge In the days to oeme.

Soon after Sh. Marwah, the then Add~ional Commissioner of Police , proceeded w~h the inquiry Shri Chander Prakash and Shri Sewa Dass, DePl'ty Commissioner of Police,lncharge 01 South and East Delhi respectively during the November riots filed a suit before the Oelhi High Court and at their instance by order dated November 25th 1985, in IA No. 2246185 arising ou! of suit no.

677/85, the High Court made an order of injunction against Shri Marwah and Shri Jog (Police Commissioner), defendants; and 2 in the su~. restraining them from publishing the inq,Jlry report or submining the same to the Lt. Govr. of Delhi or the Union of India for taking any action the,e upon against the plaintiffs. No further steps appear to have been taken by the Admninstartion to get this injunction vacated or varied. A lot aiticism has been advanced in the written arguments of the DSGMC against the adminsitration tor accepting the injunction staying the inquiry by Shri Marwah. The a~icism seems to be jusmied but ~h that part of the marter the Commission has Indeed no further concem in view 01 the fact that else where to this report the Commission inlends to recommend another inquiry to be oenducted. What is relevant for the purpose of this report is that two of the Oy. Commissioners of Police .were appr:ehensive that there was a likelihood of materials coming but against them if Shri Marwah proceeded with the inquiry and,theretore, they were anxious to rush to the court and obtained an order of interim Injunction. The inquiry, as the Commission gathers, was not proceeding for other reason ·even before the injunction from the High Court came but if the injunction had not been th~re quite likely some sort of inquiry could have been carried on in view of the fact

a.

.

.

that Shri Marwah had by then become Commissioner of POl/ce and appeared to be in favour of the inquiry of this type. The tell - tale circumstance which the ·Commission is prepared together from the ccnduct of these-two Dy. Commissioner of Police'ls that they were afraid of facing the Inquiry. All attempt was made by the Commission to examine the SM Sewa Dass and notice had been issued bUt sGrvice could not affected. The Commission did not think ~ worthwhUe to proceed further in the matter of this examination by It as the Commission propose recommending the detailed Inquiry to be undenaken.

II has been pointed out to the Commission that by way of public interest litigation a writ pet~ion had been filed before the Delhi High Court being CWP No. 2667184, requ!>stingHigh Counto issue dirl>Clions to the Delhi Admn. and the Com.missloner of Police to take action for criminal negligence against the • • guilty, including the two _Dy. Commissioner of Police _Tho High Court had deollned to interfere in that matter by order dated October 4 1985, by relying upon and accepting the statement made by joint secretary of 1119 Delhi A</.mn. to 111. efi!>CI1l1at Shri Marwah hail already be!>n appointed to inquire into the matter ""d the said inquiry was about to be ccmpleted and thus their was no neoessity for any direction of the type asked for.

(Page 41-.)· The inquiry Instead of being done by tho Commissioner of Police. should be by a higher authority as some aspects·of the conduct of the then Commissioner 01 Police may aJso have to be kJoked into. Administrative propriety would not justify his successor Commissioner of Pofice to inquire into the ccnduct of his predecessor. If th~ inquiry staned by·SIlri Marwah had not been slOpped by now some of the delinquenQos would have already been found out. Since a lot of time has been lost and delayed inquiry may not be very effective and useful, the Commission recommends that an Inquiry 'be undertaken without delay and preferably the Inquiry be handed by a Committee of two persons. an experienced retired judge of Hiah Court and an experienced civilian . A ~me frame .should be prescribed for Its working .

ACTION AGAfNST OTHERS

(Page 41 .) The persons named in the affidavits as perpetrators of the hundreds of Inhuman crimes are In greal number and may Perhaps exceed a couple of thousand on modest estimate. Everyone in the ri010us mob Indulging In criminal activity would, In the strict sense Qf law ,hove liability though their may be a dis~nction between those directiy indulging In overt·ac1s and others who may have no oven acts as sCilbed to them. As already noted the victims are keen that the law breakers are put on trial. Keeping that aspect in view it becomes.difficult for the Commission while recommending prosecution to be launched to set in judgement over the conduct of some and if necessary find them guilty by naming them under section 8 (b) of the Act . Again the Commission was Impressed by the fact that the people Involved were in great

number and the task would have been almost and impossible one . it the allegations against every named ,persons had to be scanned complying with the requirements of law........ ..

"PROSECUTING THE OFFENDER" Page 62, Most of the widows who appeared bafQ(o Q'ommlssjon as witnesses had a oommon grievance that the persons who looted 'their houses â&#x20AC;˘ set them on fire, killed their husbands, children and near relatiQrls and brutally: ass aulted them as also on occasion outraged their modesty. \~~re not being' prosecuted , They had the obsession that the killers were free on the streets and were even in a position now to jeopardise their socurity. When tho Commission was set up and became palpable that the incidents of the riot period would be scrutinised in the incpJiry. these very villains started threatening the widows and other deponents as also the people of Sikh Communrty with dire consequences in cas e they came forward to file affidavits, give evidence or did any such thing or took such action which might involve them either in proceedings before the Commission or in criminal action . In many of the affidavits their has been clear indication of the failure of the Admn. to prosecute the culprits and d emand 01 appropriate prosecutions and pun ishments 10 be awarded to the persons involved in the crime ,,, .. ... "

we

(Page 63,) Else where lIle Commission has dea" with the number 01 incidents in a classified way . The Commission has aI~ held' that during the period of riot. the rioters had their way and the admini.tration had failed to exercise adequate control. Such a ten.e and panicky situation prevailed that It becama difficult for the Victim. to approach to the police , for lodging first information report were not received if they implicated police or any person in authority and the informants were required to delete .uch allegation. from wriffen report. , When oral reports were recorded they were not taken down el1>atim and brief statement. drop. ping out allegations against police or Ofher official. and men in position were written. Several instances have come to the notice of the Commis.sion wIIere a combined FIR has been recoroed in reg ...d to saveral separate incidents. For instance, whe.r e a large mob got divided into group. and simultaneously attackad different houses and carriad on different types of operation. In the different premise., ihey ais a fact did rfotconstitute one incident, yet only a common AR he. been drawn up. Recording ih brief narrative the incident in a common RR would not provide a sound basis for a proper prosecution. Tagging of so many different incidents into one AR was bound to prejudia> thelrlal, If any, as also the accu.ed 'persons, if called upon'to defend themselves in duo course. The Commission has noticed on several occasion that while recording RR's serious allegations has been dropped out and thOugh Ithe ca88 was ¡in fact a s'rious one, in view of the dropping out of iho¡

came,

major allegations I a minor offence was set to have been committed. The commission was shocked to find that there were incidents where the police wanted clear and definate allegations against the anti-social elements in diHerentlocalities to be dropped,out while recording FIR's Unles. Ihe police were hand in glove with the anti SOCial elements In their respective localities they would not !!ave behaVed that way,

..

The .um total eHeel of Ihis has been that proper FIR's have not been recorded ......... " ,

(Page 64.) " In many cases there has not been a proper investigation The Commi.sion checked up records of inve.tigation of diHerent cIa.ses of cases at random and came to find that the Investigation. were usually perfunctory and mos,t of them had not been duly supervised even they though involved allegation. ~f serious crimes ........ ".

(Page 65.) â&#x20AC;˘ Coming to Ihese aspects of cases 'in Delhi, the picture is very grim and the Commission is inclined to agree with the victims that the major part of responsibility must be shared by Ihe pollee. While at Kanpur a number of cases have been chargesheetad,and trial thereof is pending, in Delhi most of the cases were ciosed by final report and the few cases where chargesheet has been sent (details of which appe ... in the Appendix), not much of progress appears to have been made a few. The police ra/eased ... exceptin ,. most of the accusad persons on ball at its level and those who were challenged to the court in custody have been released by the court. There has been obviously no effective opposition In the maner of grant of t>a~ nor has the order of ra/ease on bail being ~hallenged in judiei~ proceedings, in higher courts.

The criminal actfvity-In Delhi apart from being wide spread and in great"' intensity exhibited a varied spectrum of human oonduct. This re<J.Iires thorough investigation and careful handling. The same police who rertlalned ineffective during the riots and against whom several allegations. were advanced whether recorded or not, were the investigating ageocy in respect of the FIRs. The Commission finds it not difficult at all to appreciate and accept the contention of the victims that in 8 such circumstallces proper investigation could not be expected. Since the number of deaths is considerabty great and there have been number of olher. grave offences committed, it is necessary that the 811"981100. should be properly looked Into and investigations suitably monitOred.

This will mean fresh or further investigation and review of all actions , SUbsequent lhereof. For this purpose since the volume .of work i. quite heavy, a comminee of atleast two oHicers - one judicial and one administrative, preferably 8 high ranking police oHicer from outside Delhi - should be appointed immediately with full authority to look Into the papers and give such directions to the prosecuting agency as \he facts

.

of oach case would warrant Since there has been a lot of delay in attending to these prosecutions and as lurther delay would prejudice proper trial and also the prospect of justice being done, it is nec....ry that .xpeditious steps should be taken to imploment IIIese a~pects.

A list 01 17 cases has been supplied by the committee In its written arguments wherein Sikhs are accused of afferent offences. The note appended shows that the list is not complete and there may be some more caSOS 路pending. It is the stand 01 DSGMC thai some of theso cases wero baseless on embellished allegations, innocent people have been roped in and while the aggressor has gone soot free, those who defended themselves in exercise of their right of private defence of person or property have been subiected to the clutches ot law. Since the cases are pending trial, the Commission considers it totally impro~? ( to deal with them on merit or express any Opinion which might embarrass their trial. The CommiSSion, however, is of the view that the recommended committee should be asked to took into these cases and if there be any prosecution which is not justified by the test of normal norms, the same should, in the interest 01 justice, be withdrawn by the Delhi Mmn .. .."

16. On the basis of aforesaid recommendations of the Misra Conr mission the government appointed a Committee oonsisting of a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice ML Jain and retired IG 01 Police Mr. AK Banerjee with the following terms of reference. a} . To examine whether there were cases of omission to register or R'operly investigate offences committod in Delhi during the period of riots from 31 .10.84to 7.tl.1984; b) To recommend the registration 01 caso., where necessary, and to monitor the investigation thereof. c) To monitor the conduct of the investigation .and the follow up of cases already registered by the polico and to suggest steps lor effective action including fresh and further Il1vestigation, where necessary. d)

To perform any other fUnciion in ..wition to the above.

Subsequently the Deihl High Court ,held in civil writ petition filed

by Brahma Nand Gupta a co路accused with Shri Sajjan Kumar in soveral cases thai the said Committee could exercise only an advisory role and could not direc1ly monitor the investigation. However the High Court held that the Committee could advise the Lt. Governor to take any action regarding investigation and prosecution of the cases.

The government did not filo any appeal against the above mentioned judgement of Delhi High Court. However an appeal was filed by Citizen's Justice Committee (CJC) in the Supreme Court against the above mentioned

judgement. The Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to admit the appeal and the same is pending before it. A copy at the paper book of this Appeal is sent herewith and marked as AC-V. 17. The term of the Jain Banerjee Committee expired i.n the meantime.

The govern'm ent appointed another Committee I.e, Pom-Rosha Committee (Justice Potti, retired Chief Justice of Gujrat High Court and Mr. B.S. Rosha, retired Dir,ector General of Police) with theamended terms of reference I.e. to

advise the Lt Govemor on registration , investigation and prosecution of cases. The said Commi~ee recommended several cases Including atleast one murder case against Mr. Sajjan Kumar. Unlmatly, the' said

Committee

resigned in 1990 on the ground that the,e was lack of co-operStJon from the administration.

1 S. The government then appointed another Committee i.e. Jain Aggarwal Committee (consisting of Justice JD Jain, Retired Judge of Delhi High Court and Mr. O.K. Aggarwal retired Director General of Police, UP). This

Committee has looked into some of the cases which had not been reg,istered.

These official committees dealt with 1084 cases for registration ald Investigation I re-investigation. Out of those about 250 cases have 10 f. been reg istered . The remaining cases are still awaitlng registration. Itr.8atigation and prosecution.

19. On the recommendation of the Committee government appointed a Special .Riot Cell in Delhi Police for investigating the cases relating 10 the 1984 riots. The Committee was closely watChing the investigations of these

cases. There have been a number of cases in which some progress has bsen made on recommendation of the Comn'ittee. In some cases, the Committee has criticised the police fmr not holding proper investigations. The Committee was performing the role of a watch dog . The Delhi Police being aware of being â&#x20AC;˘

so watdled, did make some progress in those investigations. The term of the Jain Aggarwal Committee expired on 30.6.93. The government did nat ex-

tended the term. On request of the Committee to givethem one month to wind up, the government ~lIowed them to submit its final report by the 31 st July 1993. The Committee submitted Its report within time. The purpose for which. the Committee was appointed has not yet beer. fully achieved which Is evident from the following:

a) Murder cases involving over 2500 deaths are still pending,either in Courts or at investigation stage with the police. One of the tasks of the Comminee wa s to give directions to the prosecuting agency for proper prosecution of these cases. The Misra Commission as well as these Committees have 0bserved that there has been complete negligence and callousness in the tallow up of these cases _This is the duty of the Government to give justice to th e people and bring the guilty to book. When the existing govern-

ment machinery had faUed to achieve the said purpose, these Special C011)mittees ~er8 appointed. The purpose of the Jain Aggarwal Committee is still far from being achieved. At the stage, when due to the concerted efforts of the Jain Aggarwal Commi\t90 some progress has been made in some of the.... cases, winding up of the Committee has adversely effected the prosecu·

tion of these cases.

..b) '

A large number of cases are still pending at Investigating stage. The gov.i'nment accepted the findings 01 Misra Commission thai the local police

is nOt interested In properly investigating these cases. Dua to this reason the COmrrln~8 was appointed as a watch dog and to ensure that the proper inv&Stigation was conducted. As a large number of cases are srill pending at tho'investigating slaga the revival of the committee is absolutely essential.

9)

The prosecuting agency of the government has not liled the appeals

in ~.' murder cases which had resulted in acquinal. When this fact came to the: . j(howledge of Committee, the Comminee examined these casas and req.:lifnnended thai appeals should be liled. By that lime Ihe limitalion to file apj,98J had already expired. In view of Ihe laClthat there is lack of willingness aiKhotal negligence on part 01 prosecuting agency of the government, it is neOS$sary that there should be some Comminee to supervise the prosecution

of these cases .

• 20. On the recommendation of the . said committees the CBI has

regf.stered a murder case against Mr. Sajjan Kumar and others on the basis of complaint by Smt. Anwar Kaur in the year 1990 regarding Ihe killing 01 her ·husband. After prOlonged investigations the CBI prepared a charge sheet and

sent it to the Home Ministry in March 1992 seeking sanction to prosecute Mr.;-· Sajjan Kumar. It took 5 years to register the case, 2 years to investigate 'it and now since 1·1 /2 years , it is pending in the Home Ministry for a decision whether or not to prosecute him ! It may be mentioned that above mentioned case is a murder case and in the chargesheet Mr. Salian Kumar has been charged under section 302 of IPC for the murder of Mr. Navin Singh. However, another charge under section' 53 A of IPC. i.e. spreading enimlty among two different groups on the ground of re!igion etc., has also been added In the chargesheel.

The offence under section 153 A is much lesser a offence than under section 302 i.e. murder. Under seClion 196 CrPC tho permission of the Central Govornment is necessary lor framing a chargte under section t53 A IPC. fl

appears that in the present case sectiion 153'Ahas been invoked only for the purposo of delaying the fifing of tho chargesheet in the court. The case has been sent to the Home Mini.stry for permission to frame a charge under section

153 A . Since the main charge is that of a murder which anracts the capital punishment, there is no need to delay the prosecution only for a minor offence such as 153 A, I.P.C.

21 , The Jain 路 Aggarwal Co(lln1lnee recommended another 21 cases aga inst Mr. Sajjan Kumar, Mr. HKL Bhagat and other leaders for registration and prosecution. According to information available the then Lt. Governor of Delhi Shri Markandey Singh had accepted the reco mmendations and referred these cases to e81for investigation. The eel returned the cas es to Delhi administr ation on the ground that a special cell had already been constituted In Delhi Police and these cases be entrusted to that cell . The Delhi Administra路 lion wrote 10 the Home Ministry in November 1992 (or a decision as to who should investigate these cases. The Home Ministry does not appear to have found the ti me to decide th is issue till tOday! It is a maner pf se rious concern ttlal the government is scunlig the whale process of law and finding the ways and means to shield the guilty rather than fufilling its constitutional obligation

of prosecuting the guilty, 22.1t is learnt that when Jain Aggarwal Committee recommefded the murder case against Mr. HKl Shaga~ Mr. Shagat approached the then Lt. Governor and pleaded that no case can be registered against him because he had been exonerated by Misra Commission of Inquiry. It is learnt that the Lt. Governor as well as Jain Aggarwal Committee has dismissed that objection as there being no merits in the same and recommended the cases for registration against Mr. Bhagat.

23.The Advisory Committee would like to clarify the factual and legal position regarding the alleged exoneration of Mr. HKL Shagat by Misra Commission.

Misra Commission has stated in its report that Commission Is not going into individual cases . The observations of the Commission at page 41 are material. The Commission has observed ., This has, therefore, been an added consideration weighing with the Commission for desisting from making any assesment of the allegations implicating individuals as either members of the riotous mobs or organisers thereof.

The Commission could not have undertaken an inquisitorial proceeding."

The Misra Commission has further observed ; ''The Commission had no intention of separately dealing with the cas e of Shri Bhagat but as this was very much highlighted, was inquired ~ n to by the Investigating Agency, evidence abo_ ut it was specifically 'ed <1n d the affidavits which the Commission has not very much relied upon I':are pressed into service, the Commission has thought it appropriate 10 deal with it The Commission makes it clear that these are prima facie conclusions as far as he is concerned. In the list at Page 219 of the written arguments of the Committee where 16 instances are ciled he Is said to

have held a meeting of partY people. The evidence regarding ~hal transpired at the meeting is scanty."

"In the absence of convincing material I the Commisston is not in 8 position to accept the allegation that Shri Bhagat had instigated the rioters ...

A perusal 01 the above clearly .hows that this does not amount to an exoneration. The Commission has made only prima facie observations and has not given any finM findings. In any case the observations of the Commission can not be treated as abar to registration of a criminal case on specific charges, mainlv when sufficient evidence has come forth for the prosecution of the person in a criminal case.

24. Two other murder cases, one against Mr. Sajjan Kumar and 路 another against Mr. Dharam Das Shastri, are beIng investigated by the Delhi Police. It is learnt that the charg~ sheets are ready in these cases but they have not yet been filed in court due to pressure from some higher source.

25. Some other cases recommended by the Jain路 Aggarwal Committee have not yet been reg istered, while investigations in the cases which have been registered are progressing at a snail's pace.

26. The Jain 路 Aggarwal Comminee has identified 292 police officials who were found guilty of negligence of duty in conducting faulty investigations and for tampering with the records. No action has been Initiated against these police officials.

27. Orie case is registered by Delhi Police involvi~g Mr. Jagdish Tytler.

It is learnt that the name of Mr. Jagdish Tytler has been dropped during investigations. The government should examine this case carefu lly and If necessary order reinvestigation of the same.

28. 72 police officials were identified by Mrs . Kusum MinaI, lAS (Retd.) in her report for actively participating in the violence and for negligence of their duties during the riots. The government served charge sheet on those officials just before the Punjab elections. After that no further progress has been made and all the offi cials continue In senior positions while some of them have even been promoted.

29. 路 1t is duty 01 the government to enforce the law and to punish the guilty as per the law. Under the Criminal Procedure Code. The police is duty bound to register a case wherever a cognizable offence is committed. Since a murder is cognizable offence theretore the police Is under a duty to register every case regarding each..and every murder and conduct the investigations to find as to who has commined these murder and than to prosecute the said accused persons as per the law. Regarding the killings of November 1984 the

police has grossly tailed in its duty. In turn the government also failed to enforce the Jaw. A number of steps were taken to ensure that the law should be enforced at the earliest butthe same has not borne mucf1 fruits as yet as police and government have scuttled every proceeding at every stage.

INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED The Advisory Committ~e requires certain information and documents relating to various aspects of the issues involved to enable it to make its remaining recommendations. A separate request is being made for collecting and providing such information and documents to the Advisory Comminee to enable it to complete its role effectively.

In the meantime, this committee recommends that goverment may consider taking the following steps with a view to maintain the rule of law and got the guilty porsona 01 the public and police su itably dealt with . Further recommendations will be made on receiving the informatton and documents as may b. supplied to fl. Advisory Committee. These recommendations are being made on ,the basis Of the information available at the moment with the Advisory Committee at t~e moment so as to avoid further delay in taking . appropriate action.

FIRST SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE . . The Government may oonslder the Iollowing : 1. Jain Aggarwal Cqmmlttee (ooosisting 01 Justir.e J.O.Jaln, retired judge 01 Delhi High Court and Mr. D.K .Aggarwal , retired Director General 01 Police) has recommended registration and further action in 2t cases involving certain politlcalloadors. Inspitllol \helact that the LT. Govemor 01 Delhi had accepted registered so far. these reoommeOdations long ago, the cases have not These cases are pending since mid 1992 for registration. These 21 cases may be registered immediately and necessary follow up action for investigation and filling 01 challans in app:opriate oourts be taken w~h a sense 01 urgency.

bee"

2. The Jain Aggarwal Committee was appointed by the LT. Governor 01 Delhi to : (a) To examine whether there were cases of omission to register or properly investigate offences oommitted In Delhi during the period 01 riols lrom 3tst October, 1984 to 7th November, 1984: (b) To recomma id to the Adminstrator, where necessary, the registration of casBS and their investigation:

(c) To make suggestions to the Adminstrator where necessary, for th~ ' condud of invdstigation and'prosecution of cases.

This comrrittee has been pre-maturely wound up. ~ Is recommended thai thi' comrriftee b8 revived to corll'lete its unfinished task. '. 3. The Special Riots Cell constilUted In Delhi Police to handl. Nov.mber t 984 cases b. mad. more effective and should continue for th. investigation and prosecu1ion of these Cases. n is particularly suggested thai a poNce of unquesti~ Integrity of the rWlk of alleast a DIG be taken ·on d'putation in the Delhi Police and made Incharge 01 this Special Cell. '. 4. All cases already recommended by ,Jain Agg'lrwal Comrrittee be ri!ll!ttered Immediately. The post registration Investigation to enable the p!w3don and fiing 01 .... chargesheets in court may be got compleled within ~. . bound program'!"' • •:, 5. The procedJre adopted by DeIhl Pea of.embarking on pr....eg;stra· ti~ Inquiry with a view to decide whether to reglsto( the cases or not is not ,,~ by law and be stopped. All the cases should be first regisl<tred and imo..ligaled thereafter for filing the chargesheets in the court.

6. In case of Jrurder charge against Mr. Sajjan Kumar and others on the "'~~: 01 M,s. AnwBl Ka.... the govwnment of Delhi should take up the ~ . CBllDdropthechargeundersectionl53AIPC. andproceed'with murcle< case by filing the chargesheet undO( S8dion 3021PC etc. Prosecution 01 a serlous charge 01 murdO( should not be held up any lurther.

7. Independanl Special Prosecutors lrom tho practiang lawyers be appointed 10 handle the cases relating to ",",ve, i Iber 1984 kI"ings lor different areas.

8. it has come to the notice of Advisory Committee that sonia in Jrurder cases which have been registered the accused named therin have not been arrested. It is the mendate 01 law that when a case of non-bailable offence is registered the accused are arrested and produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and then it Is left in the Judicial d1sctitiOn 01 the court to proceed w~h them. Th. arrest of the accused in a non-bailable offence and . iTOre particularly in a serious offence connected with murder. is a must and the investigating officer is duty bound to affect h. Wher.v.r dereliction of duty of this nature has taken place. steps should be taken to remove iL 9. The GOvernment may consider taking appropriate action against the concemed police offICials who may be lound to have Ialled In the discharge of thair duties during Nov. 1984 carnage. Th. lailure may be by acts 01 commi s· sion or ommission. The allegations against police officials Include;

(a) commission of serious offences for which criminal cases have be.en registered or recommended to be registered against poli ce officials: (b) actively aided and abetted the commssion ·of offences :

(c) connived at oommission of serious offenc·e~;

(d) not taken imrnedate appropriate adion according to law t.o prevent or stop the·commission of offences; OJ

(e) tempered with orf~ated the record in oon'nection with the violence cases connected therewith~

missued directions contral')' to the law with a view to help the offenders.

The government may consider taking appropriate action by departmental proceooings or otherwise to deal with the dellnqu.ent police officials, IncluCing suspension in appropriat cases keeping in view the gravity of misconduct and other relevent factors, 10. Chargesheets have already been served in departmental proceed· ings against 72 police officials. Expeditious and appropriate steps may be taken to bring these proceedings to a logical end,

11, Jaih·Aggarwal committee has identified police officials wno have tempered with or fabricated offidal receds or deleberately conducted faulty Investigations to help the accused. Such officials be dean with by taking suitable departmental action against them.

11th. January 1.994

Justice R.S. Narula

It. Gen. J.S. Aurora

D.V. Sehgal U.R. lalit Dr. Maheep Singt1

Adarsh Gael Virender Singh Joha( M.S. Butalia

H.S. Phoolka Published by: The Sikh Forum. 86 Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi.

Printed by: Amrit Enterprises, 8 ·70/72, Lawrence Road, Delhi. Ph·7180701 Price: 51· (Rs. Rire only)