Delhi HC judge recuses himself from hearing pleas concerning 2019 Jamia violence

Delhi High Court judge Amit Sharma on Tuesday recused himself from hearing a batch of petitions related to the violence that broke out in Jamia Millia Islamia following anti-CAA protests in December 2019. The matter was listed before a division bench headed by Justice Prathiba M Singh after a change in the roster of judges dealing with such cases.

"List before another bench, of which Justice Amit Sharma is not a member, on August 8," said Justice Singh.

Several petitions were filed in the aftermath of the violence before the high court, seeking directions for setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT), Commission of Inquiry (CoI) or a fact-finding committee, for medical treatment, grant of compensation and registration of FIRs against the erring police officers.

The petitioners before the court are lawyers, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) students, residents of south Delhi's Okhla, where the university is located, and the Imam of Jama Masjid mosque opposite Parliament.

The petitioners have claimed that there was a need for the constitution of an SIT which was independent of the police and the central government to probe the alleged brutalities committed on the students by the police force.

They have said that such a move would "reassure the public" and restore people's faith in the system.

In their response, the police have opposed the petitions and said the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted as charge sheets have been filed in connection with the violence cases and they should have sought whatever relief they wanted before the subordinate court concerned.

They have asserted that in the garb of student agitation, a well-planned attempt was made by some persons with local support to intentionally perpetrate violence in the area and subsequently, comprehensive investigation was carried out by the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police in several FIRs.

Police have said the petitioners are "interlopers" and the local politicians in the area used protests at JMI as a "facade" to attack police and cause violence.

It has opposed setting up of an SIT to inquire into the alleged police atrocities as well as transferring the FIRs lodged against the students to an independent agency and argued that a "stranger" cannot seek a judicial inquiry or investigation by any third-party agency.

The police have also said that PIL petitioners cannot be permitted to choose members of the SIT for investigating and prosecuting any alleged offence.