Rejoinder: Delhi Police’s whataboutery does not deny the allegations against BJP leaders in Delhi violence

On 21 June, The Caravan published an article titled, “Dead and Buried: Delhi Police ignored complaints against Kapil Mishra, other BJP leaders for leading mobs in Delhi violence,” by an independent journalist, Prabhjit Singh. The article reproduced complaints filed by residents of northeast Delhi following the communal violence that swept the region in February. It noted that several complaints accused Bharatiya Janata Party leaders—namely, Kapil Mishra, Satya Pal Singh, Jagdish Pradhan, Nand Kishore Gujjar and Mohan Singh Bisht—of participating in or orchestrating the violence, and that the Delhi Police had not pursued these complaints. The Caravan sent the Delhi Police detailed queries ahead of the publication of the article, regarding the allegations against the leaders and whether the police had acted on them. The Delhi Police did not respond to these queries. Relevant queries were also sent to the BJP leaders named in the complaints, some of whom responded and said that the police had never contacted them as part of any investigation into these complaints.

On 26 June, the Delhi Police tweeted a response to the article, as a reply to a tweet by The Caravan. Interestingly, in a response that claims the Delhi Police “effectively controlled” the violence that killed at least 53 persons, the police first tweeted a response that stated the violence took place “in the first week of February 2020,” before deleting it and posting another tweet rectifying the error, without noting that it had been changed.

Both versions of the rejoinder responded to the contents of the 21 June article, but incorrectly stated that Singh’s article was published on 24 June. That day, The Caravan had, in fact, published a second story in its ongoing series about the complaints arising from the Delhi violence. The second article focused on the allegations against senior Delhi Police officials. Ahead of this article as well, The Caravan had sent the Delhi Police a detailed set of queries. The police did not respond to the earlier queries nor the second set of questions—and it is yet to tweet a rejoinder to it.

Read Singh’s 21 June report on the complaints against Kapil Mishra and other BJP leaders here and his 24 June report on allegations against Delhi Police officials here. The Delhi Police’s tweet with the rejoinder to the first story is embedded below, followed by Singh’s response to it.

First and foremost, it is pertinent to note that the Delhi Police has made several claims about the article published on 21 June, including that it is “a script full of imagination and concoction, based on malicious, ill-informed and unverified facts.” But it has not denied receiving any of the complaints mentioned in the article. Neither has it denied the fact that the Delhi Police did not act on these complaints, nor specifically responded to the allegations about the alleged role of various BJP leaders in the Delhi violence. The Delhi Police has also not denied that none of the BJP leaders named in these complaints faced any sort of investigation or action despite the gravity of the allegations against them. In this regard, the police has claimed that it “registered FIRs on cognizable offences” in the complaints it received. This appears to be ostensibly false, given that the police has not registered any FIRs against the complaints referred to in the article.

These complaints disclosed cognisable offences, including allegedly directing the police and the rioters to attack and murder the protesters, and receiving money looted from a mosque. The Delhi Police’s reply does not speak of any FIR registered against these allegations or complaints. It is a well settled principle of law that the police are under obligation to register an FIR against any complaint that discloses a cognisable offence, as established by the Supreme Court. As per Indian criminal procedure, it is not for the Delhi Police to deny registering an FIR into a complaint because of any delay—that is a question to be considered and addressed by the judiciary. Further, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court have held in numerous judgments that a delay in filing a complaint is not fatal to a case.

The Delhi Police’s rejoinder also makes the curious claim that the article “lacks details, clear identity of alleged complainants, specific time and date of the incident etc.” Not only does the article quote the specific allegations from the complaints, it was also published alongside the complaints in full, apart from the personal details of the complainants, which were redacted for their safety. These complaints also bear stamps or signatures acknowledging that the police received them. The specific details of all the allegations can be clearly read in the original version that was submitted to the Delhi Police, which The Caravan reproduced. So, it is unclear what the rejoinder is referring to in this regard. Moreover, out of the nine complaints quoted in the article, only two of the complainants requested to remain anonymous, fearing repercussions, while the other seven complainants have been identified by name. In any case, given that the Delhi Police has not denied receiving these complaints, it can also confirm the contents of these complaints, the complainants, and whatever other details it may seek, from its own record.

To argue that the Delhi Police has not prevented anyone from being able to file an FIR at police stations, the rejoinder notes that more than 750 FIRs were filed in various police stations of northeast Delhi in connection to the violence. However, the police has not clarified how many of these FIRs, if any, were registered against the named BJP politicians. As stated in the article and in the complaints published with the story, almost all the complainants said that the Delhi Police officials had refused to accept their complaints or register FIRs in the specific allegations they raised. One complainant stated that the police specifically told her that it would register an FIR against her complaint only if she withdrew the names of those she was complaining against.

The Delhi Police has conveniently provided statistics about the number of FIRs it has registered, without responding to the specific allegation in the piece that the police buried the complaints that named BJP leaders. It has neither denied this in its rejoinder, not provided any information to prove otherwise. The police has not shared any details that suggest that it initiated any action against the named BJP leaders in response to the complaints against them.

Without acknowledging or responding to the accusation that police stations refused to lodge these complaints, the Delhi Police has sought to blame one of the complainants, Rubina Bano, for filing the complaint 22 days after the violence. However, this response does not acknowledge the fact that Bano stated in her complaint that the Bhajanpura station house officer told her, “File a complaint without any names, this complaint will not be accepted, nor will anything be given in writing.” Bano further noted that the SHO proceeded to threaten to implicate her in a case for seeking to file a complaint naming the accused persons. Yet, the Delhi Police appears to have ignored these aspects of her complaints. In fact, instead of responding to these aspects, the police noted that she is “under scanner” in relation to an “unlawful” sit-in at Chand Bagh—under Indian law, any allegations against Bano would still not preclude the police from its obligation to register an FIR into the cognisable offences made out in her complaint.

The Delhi Police has also stated in the rejoinder that Bano, in a video testimony to The Caravan, has raised accusations that she did not state in her complaint. Specifically, the police noted that Bano did not write in her complaint that the police forced locals to chant “Jai Shri Ram,” or that Kapil Mishra participating in stone pelting at Karawal Nagar on the night of 23 February—both statements that she gave to The Caravan. But the Delhi Police did not, pertinently, deny the allegations in Bano’s complaint or her testimony. Further, the rejoinder also failed to address the allegations in her complaint that Bano repeated in the testimony.

The Delhi Police has expended a large portion of its reply to focus on its officials who were injured during the protests. This section of its response reeks of whataboutery and misdirection. The police has completely ignored the thrust of the article, which proves that the Delhi Police ignored complaints naming elected BJP officials of participating in or orchestrating the violence. The police’s response does not address these allegations, and instead focuses on the injuries sustained by police officials. At no point does the article dispute that police officials were injured during the violence, nor does it even refer to the specific accounts of these injuries that the police noted in its rejoinder. But by failing to respond to the thrust of the article or to give any indications that contradict it, the police has effectively demonstrated the allegations of the complainants—that the Delhi Police buried complaints against BJP leaders accused in the Delhi violence, and it appears to be continuing to do so.

In reference to another complaint quoted in the article, by Mohammed Ilyas, the police has stated that it had already registered two FIRs into one of the incidents referred to in the complaint—that the police burnt down the Farooqia Masjid. Conspicuously, the police did not state that it registered an FIR against Ilyas’s complaint. This is a particularly crucial and convenient omission on the part of the Delhi Police, given that Ilyas’s complaint accused the Delhi Police of sending money looted from the mosque to the BJP parliamentarian, Satya Pal Singh. Ilyas’s complaint also accused the police officials of taking a petrol can from the Dayalpur SHO’s car and using it to set the madrasa next to the Farooqia Masjid on fire.

Yet, without providing any reason to dismiss these grave allegations, the Delhi Police has claimed that they “appear more to be a figment of his imagination.” It is left unclear how the police arrived at this conclusion without registering an FIR against the complaint or interrogating the parliamentarian Satya Pal. Instead, the Delhi Police has claimed that the complaint was an afterthought because it was filed on 16 March 2020. It does not take note of the fact that Ilyas has written in his complaint, “Sir, I have tried several times to lodge a complaint at the police station but the policemen refuse to accept my complaint, and threaten to implicate me in riots cases and throw me in jail if I pursue my complaint.”

In reference to another complaint quoted in the article, by Mohammed Jami Rizvi, the Delhi Police’s response noted that the police could not find Rizvi at his stated address or reach him over the phone. I spoke to Rizvi after the Delhi Police posted their rejoinder to ask him about this. He told me that there was a slight error in his address on the complaint, which he had rectified on the same day that he filed the complaint—24 February. He added that he still resides at the same address and the police have never visited him to pursue his complaint. He also claimed that he had not received any phone calls from the police.

Despite admitting that they were unable to speak to Rizvi, the Delhi Police added that the complaint was “identical to that of Mohammad Illyas and the enquiry has revealed no iota of truth in it.” But given that the police did not provide any explanation for what enquiry it conducted into Ilyas’s complaint, and that they could not even contact Rizvi, it is unclear how the police arrived at this conclusion.

Perhaps the most baffling detail of the Delhi Police’s rejoinder is presented towards the end. After stating that many of the complainants or their family members are “under scanner for their culpability in the riots,” the police claimed that by filing the complaints, these complainants were “mounting pressures on the police to escape legal action.” Firstly, it is curious that the Delhi Police did not identify a single complaint or FIR against these complainants, and is yet investigating their potential role in the violence, while ignoring the complaints against BJP leaders that were filed to over three months earlier. It is unclear why the lodging of complaints would exert pressure on the police to “escape legal action.” Meanwhile, the BJP politicians appear to have escaped legal action without filing any complaint at all.

Yet another curious reason stated by the police to argue that the complaints relied on in the article are “questionable,” is that the “content, tone & tenor of such complaints are identical, mainly targeting a particular set of individuals and police officers.” The Delhi Police has not, however, explained when and how, if at all, it ruled out the possibility that these complaints sound similar and accuse the same set of people because they all witnessed the same set of people involved in the violence. In fact, the presence of several complaints naming the same BJP leaders in the same areas could also strengthen the value of these complaints, and underscore the necessity for an investigation by the Delhi Police, instead of burying these complaints.

The rejoinder also states, “Delhi Police is fully aware that they will be targeted to dissuade it from pursuing the investigation by those with vested interest. The group of people create atmosphere of distrust, a communal and social discord by playing along the fault lines.” Ironically, the complainants effectively accuse the Delhi Police of the same thing in their complaints—of acting with a vested interest against the Muslim residents, and creating communal and social discord by doing so.

Finally, the Delhi Police has accused me of forgetting “some basic tenets of journalism” while reporting the piece. However, the reporting of this article has adhered to the highest standards of scrutiny required for journalism, and the social responsibility attached to it. The Delhi Police has claimed in its rejoinder that the complaints are “fueled by vested interests” and that I did not “go by the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police merely on the presumption that it is partisan.” But as a bare reading of the article would convey to readers, this is incorrect—the residents of northeast Delhi have accused the police of being partisan based on their experience during the violence and with the police, which they then expressed in written complaints filed before the police. As a journalist, my role was to report this allegation against the police, and to reach out to the police for its response.

Exercising due caution and diligence, I spoke to the complainants in detail and reviewed their complaints, which bore receiving stamps or signatures, confirming that these reports had been submitted to the Delhi Police. The complainants further reiterated their allegations on video for this story, which were also released along with the article. Before the article was published, I reached out to the Delhi Police and the BJP leaders for their response to the allegations in the complaints and the testimonies. While the politicians stated that the police had not conducted any investigation against them, the police did not respond.

In fact, on 22 June, three days after I first contacted the Delhi Police public-relations officer, MS Randhawa, for a response, the PRO called me that night and claimed that the questions were “not specific.” Randhawa added, “There are ‘n’ number of complaints, but you have not stated any specific complaint.” Given that the questions emailed to him sought responses regarding complaints against BJP leaders and Delhi Police officials accusing them of complicity in the February violence, Randhawa’s response appears instead to be an inadvertent admission of numerous such complaints. I sent another list of questions to Randhawa after our phone call, but he did not respond to those queries either.

In totality, the Delhi Police’s rejoinder does not respond to the primary findings of the article, that the police effectively buried the complaints against BJP leaders. The police has not denied receiving those complaints. It has not denied that it did not register any FIRs against these complaints. It has not denied that it did not take any action against the named BJP leaders. The Delhi Police has sought to argue that the complaints were filed as afterthoughts and with delays, without addressing the accusation that it threatened the complainants and refused to accept complaints that named specific accused individuals who are from the ruling party. Instead, the Delhi Police has responded with further veiled threats, noting that the complainants and their families are under its scanner.

Perhaps most pertinently, the Delhi Police has failed to admit or address the fact that they are under a legal obligation to register an FIR if they receive a complaint disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence. That is the law of the land, as laid down by the Supreme Court. By not registering these cases, the police showed scant regard for a law prescribed by the country’s highest court. The Delhi Police does not possess any power or discretion to sit on complaints for months on end and later rebut the substance of those complaints on Twitter. In fact, their failure to register cases against their own officers, for intimidation and violence, and the BJP leaders, for inciting such violence, is itself a gross illegality and complete abuse of power.

One of the most important responsibilities of a journalist—if not the most important—is to highlight the excesses and illegalities committed by the state against its citizens. The complaints arising out of the Delhi violence against the BJP leaders and the Delhi Police raise grave allegations of precisely that—excesses and illegalities. By reporting and publishing this article after giving due time to the police to state its response, The Caravan and I have carried out our responsibility as the fourth pillar of the democracy. Perhaps if the Delhi Police had carried out its responsibility with honesty and transparency, this article and these rejoinders would never have been necessary.