The Supreme Court on Monday sought a fresh report from the Delhi Police on the status of appeals challenging acquittals in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots as it questioned why the refusal by the Delhi high court to reopen cases was not challenged in the top court.

Going through a status report submitted by the Centre and the Delhi Police last month, a bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka said, “We find from the report that the high court has dismissed several cases. You (Delhi Police) have not challenged it here. A large number of cases are there. You take instructions.”
The court was responding to a status report filed on January 13 by the police highlighting the status of eight cases where a special investigation team (SIT) headed by former Delhi high court judge, justice (retd) SN Dhingra, recommended filing of appeals.
When the case was last heard on January 27, this report was not available to the court, and the matter got adjourned. On Monday, senior advocate HS Phoolka, who represented petitioner S Gurlad Singh Kahlon, informed the court that the recommendations of the SIT were not honoured as special leave petitions (SLP) challenging the dismissal orders by the high court were filed only in two cases.
The bench, also comprising of justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said, “We find that the orders dismissing these appeals were passed by the high court in August and October of 2024.” Pointing this fact to additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, the bench said, “The counsel for Union of India states that a fresh status report shall be filed in two days.” The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 10.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by former Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) member Kahlon, on whose plea the top court in 2018 constituted an SIT led by justice Dhingra to probe 199 cases where investigations stood closed.
Out of the 199 cases examined by the SIT, 54 cases were of murder involving 426 people; 31 cases involved bodily injury to about 80 people; and 114 cases related to rioting, arson and loot. In a majority of instances, the case was either closed on account of the accused or witnesses remaining untraced. The SIT found out that hundreds of affidavits were filed by victims or witnesses before the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry that probed into the 1984 riots. Later, many of them retracted their statements as the delayed trial left them tired and discouraged.
Referring to the SIT report submitted to the Centre in April 2019, ASG Bhati said that though the SIT found “lacunae” in the investigation and trial of several cases, it was of the opinion that further investigation cannot be taken up. In instances where the SIT recommended filing of appeal against acquittal, the cases got dismissed due to the prolonged delay.
Referring to the contents of the SIT report, the lawyers for the victims – advocates Amarjit Bedi and Jagjit Singh Chhabra — submitted: “The judgments passed by this court as well as the high court regarding the delay in investigation and trial are intentionally caused by the government agencies in the matters relating to 1984 Sikh killings with a view to shield the accused.”
Delhi witnessed large-scale violence and killings of persons from the Sikh community following the then prime minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her bodyguards in 1984. According to the Nanavati Commission, which probed these cases, there were a total 587 FIRs registered in Delhi in relation to 1984 riots in which 2,733 people were killed. The police shut about 240 cases as “untraced” and about 250 cases resulted in acquittals.
The SIT in its report said, “The whole efforts of the police and the administration seem to have been to hush up the criminal cases concerning riots…All 199 cases were scrutinized for possibility of further action but in none of the cases further investigation is possible.”
The SIT, also comprising IPS officer Abhishek Dular, added, “The basic reason for these crimes remaining unpunished and culprits getting scot-free was lack of interest shown by the police and the authorities in handling these cases as per law or to proceed with the intention of punishing the culprits.”