The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre over a petition seeking quashing of reports of various private entities in connection with the Northeast Delhi riots including the report of the Fact Finding Committee of the Delhi Minorities Commission.
A division bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice and slated the matter for further hearing on March 26.
The petition filed by Dharmesh Sharma challenged several private reports on the Delhi Riots, including the Report published by Human Rights Watch titled as – “Shoot the Traitors – Discrimination against Muslims under India’s New Citizenship Policy‟, Citizens and Lawyers Initiative titled as “Delhi Riots of February 2020- Causes, Fallout and Aftermath‟; Amnesty International India; Constitutional Conduct Group Report titled “Citizens Committee on the Delhi Riots of February 2020: Context, Events and Aftermath”.
During the course of hearing, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the petitioner, submitted that it was contempt of court to put such material in public domain after a chargesheet in riots matters is filed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Central government, submitted that the petition required examination by the Court. “The petitioner is making wild allegations that have contributed to the reports.If that is so, it is vitiated,” Mehta said.
Sharma, a riots victim, knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court to declare that any of such reports by any statutory authorities or private organisations or “any extra-judicial private tribunal” are without any authority of law, non-est, void and ought not be relied upon by any judicial forum.
The plea stated that the report claims that the riots were planned by government of the day with active connivance of the majority population and that FIRs against rioters of the minority community are false.
The petition reads,
“..form and content of the reports are designed in such a fashion so as to deceive the judicial forums and the public at large and to pass-off the same (in a deceptive manner) in a manner to prejudice the general public and world at large against the investigations and subsequent proceedings in accordance with law. Not only this, the said reports have been arrived at by individuals who have acted as, extra-constitutional private tribunals and have sought to give credence to their reports by attaching their former constitutional and executive posts.”