DELHI: Terming the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom as a “genocide”, on 28 November, the Delhi High Court finally convicted 89 defendents who took part in a carnage in Delhi’s Trilokpuri, 34 years after the incident and 22 years after the trial court verdict.

In his seventy-nine page judgement, Honourable Justice R K Gauba said that the protracted process for securing justice and closure was a “sordid experiment in the name of criminal process”, and wondered aloud if the judicial process is equipped enough to deal with crimes of such magnitude, and termed the final determination of guilt a mere academic exercise.

Besides hauling up the police and prosecution for multiple determined attempts at tardy progress of trial and obfuscation of facts and obstruction of justice, Justice Gauba also suggested a slew of measures which should be taken to deal with incidents of communal violence such as this, in which more than a 100 people had been affected and for which a total of 107 persons were booked for serious offences. The judge took into account the victims’ allegations that not only was the police a mute spectator, but they also provided direct and indirect assistance to the accused in order to ensure they were not brought to book, even if brought to trial.

The one hundred and twenty witnesses who went to the police reported arson, looting and murder of people by setting them ablaze. However, the police did not register charges of murder, registering offences only under sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 429, 304 (Culpable homicide) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

The SHO (Station House Officer) of Kalyanpuri police station, under whose jurisdiction Trilokpuri falls, even filed two chargesheets for the same incident, and this was deprecated by the high court- stating that the very filing of two initial chargesheets in December 1985 “shows the questionable quality of legal assistance availed by the State”.

Although, the chargesheets made out a case for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, they were so weak and unconvincing that the court dropped the charge. The high court noted that “there is no clarity in the trial court proceedings as to why the charges for murder or attempt to murder were not taken on board.”

Out of the total of one hundred and twenty witnesses, eventually the prosecution examined only eleven and thus, a large part of the evidence was kept out, the high court regrettably noted in the judgement.

Moreover, many of the accused failed to appear, and it was an uphill task to secure the attendance of those obdurate persons, especially with the police displaying its laxity and the prosecution not being forceful enough, thus dragging on the trial for many years.

In paragraph 101 of his ruling, Justice Gauba unhesitatingly used the term genocide to describe the spate of violence and killings, and said that in adjudicating such a case, the “ordinary rules of appreciation of evidence cannot serve the cause of justice, especially in view of the extraordinary circumstances that prevailed,” relying on the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in the case of Prithpal Singh v State of Punjab.

Therefore, even with the scant and patchy evidence on record, he had to convict the accused, because of the overwhelming political powers they used to cover up their crimes.

At paragraph 122, Justice Gauba noted – “the case at hand may be treated as a paradigm which ought not to be followed in cases of such nature.” The response of the law has been tardy, ineffective and highly unsatisfactory, he noted, and mooted the idea that the task of collecting and preserving evidence could be entrusted to human rights commissions because of the statutory and non-partisan status that they enjoy, so that they are free from being influenced by vested interests bent upon defeating the rule of law.

“The general criminal law is provenly ill-equipped to deal with the challenge of such crimes of mammoth proportion, particularly when they are invariably perceived to be engineered by those holding control over certain central powers”, Justice Gauba stated in his judgement, and gave the following suggestions for Parliament, based on his experience in the present case:

– Suitable amendments be brought to the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to entrust the responsibility of taking note of the cognisable offences committed in communal riots and their investigation through SITs (Special Investigation Team) and Special Public Prosecutor(s).

– Such Commissions would have their own investigative machinery to probe in an effective manner. Such Commissions might avail the assistance of Legal Service Authority and the judicial magistracy to make the effort more comprehensive and effective.

– This neutral agency would ensure that no charge-sheet is brought to the criminal court for taking of cognisance, or trial, unless it has been properly vetted dispassionately by those well-trained in criminal law such that it is free from any defect, inadvertent or otherwise.

– Special Courts dedicated to the subject of communal riots be established with suitable amendments to the general criminal law procedure as indeed the rules of evidence.

– Press reports, supported by photographic material or video footages put in public domain, be considered as evidence in trials of criminal cases arising out of communal riots.

– An exception be carved out to permit the absence of accused from the court hearings to tackle one of the major causes for delay in the judicial process. Such rule of procedure in cases of trial in communal cases involving a large number of accused would have a salutary effect.

Justice Gauba ended his ruling with this dire warning about the case being forgotten:

“The manner of prosecution of the case at hand would undoubtedly go-down in judicial history of this country as an example of criminal law process that must never be emulated. From this perspective, and in the expectation that those at the helm draw lessons from here, one hopes that this case is never forgotten.”

The full judgement can be read at the following link:



One thought on “India: Delhi High Court Terms 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms As A Genocide

  1. The entire process over 34 years has been designed by the state to protect the guilty, to protect those that planned, those who had the power to orchestrate all facets of state machinery to carry out this crime against humanity.

    Every part of what constitutes a state – the government the political classes, the judiciary, the security services and the media were pitted against the entire Sikh community in a sickening example of collective punishment.

    That same state machinery has done all in its power in the intervening years to protect the architects, the orchestrators, those who turned hatred into bloody massacres – it continues to protect its own until this day, offering up minions as sacrifice isn’t justice, it’s empty symbolism, a foil for the state’s benefit, certainly not the victims.

    It remains the case that 99% of victims of November 84 Sikh massacres will not receive justice.

    It remains the case that 100% of India’s Operation Bluestar’s victims will never receive justice.

    It remains the case that 100% of India’s Operation Woodrose’s victims will never receive justice.

    It remains the case that 100% of those who devised, orchestrated and led any of these three massacres that collectively constitute genocide – remain free and untouchable, shielded from prosecution and protected from consequence by the very state that is supposed to dispense justice..

    Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment under Adolf Hitler once noted:

    ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 + 6 =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.