Police showed ‘lack of interest’: What SN Dhingra committee report says on 1984 riots probe

ThePrint explains how the S.N. Dhingra committee was formed after ten such panels, and what its report says.

The Supreme Court of India | Manisha Mondal | ThePrint

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it has accepted the Justice S.N. Dhingra committee report, which was looking into 199 cases linked to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that were closed by an earlier probe committee.

The government told the court that it will take actions as the report recommended.

This was the eleventh such probe body to look into the riots that ensued after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, resulting in the killing of over 3,300 individuals — nearly all of them Sikhs — across the country.

ThePrint explains how the S.N. Dhingra was formed and what its report says.

Not the first time

Before the Justice Dhingra committee, a total of 10 committees, commissions and teams had been formed to investigate the 1984 riots.

Set up in November 1984, the first was a commission led by then additional commissioner of police Ved Marwah to look into the role of the police in the massacre.

The panel right before Justice S.N. Dhingra committee was led by IPS officer Pramod Asthana in 2015 and comprised retired district and sessions judge Rakesh Kapoor and additional deputy commissioner of Delhi Police Kumar Gyanesh.

This committee told the Supreme Court in March 2017 that it had closed 199 cases it was looking into, and the government said in August that year another 42 had been closed. After two years of investigation, the SIT had filed chargesheets only in 12 cases.

A two-member SIT

In August 2017, the Supreme Court appointed a supervisory panel of two retired Supreme Court judges to look into whether the Pramod Asthana committee’s decision to close the cases was appropriate.

The committee comprising former Supreme Court justices J.M. Panchal and K.S.P. Radhakrishnan told the court that the Asthana panel had said in its report that 186 out of the 241 cases were closed without investigation.

A fresh SIT was then constituted by the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Dhingra and comprising serving 2006-batch Himachal Pradesh-cadre IPS officer Abhishek Dular and retired inspector general rank officer Rajdeep Singh. This committee was to look into whether the 186 cases could be reopened for investigations.

However, Singh refused to be a member of the SIT on “personal grounds”.

After a delay of 11 months, the SIT began its probe, without a third member. It was handed over a total of 199 closed cases by the Supreme Court to look into.

Dhingra’s inclusion in the commission had raised some eyebrows, as he had dealt with several cases linked to the riots as a judge in the Karkardooma court. At least 16 of these cases had resulted in a conviction — the most prominent being that of Kishori Lal, who was dubbed by the media as the “butcher of Trilokpuri” for his role in killing many Sikhs in the Delhi locality.

Dhingra had also made headlines in 2002, when he had sentenced Afzal Guru to death for his role in plotting the December 2001 terror attack on Parliament.

‘Lack of interest shown by police’

The S.N. Dhingra committee’s report submitted to the Supreme Court in November last year had scathing remarks against the police officers involved in the investigation, as it blamed the “lack of interest shown by the police” for the accused going scot-free.

“Despite a large number of victims approaching various agencies soon after the riots and for few years thereafter, still a large number of crimes of murders, rioting, looting, arson remained unpunished and untraced. The basic reason for these crimes remaining unpunished and culprits getting scot free was lack of interest shown by the police and by the authorities in handling these cases as per law or to proceed with the intention of punishing the culprits,” it said.

The report also poked holes in the way the investigation was conducted. For instance, it pointed out that the police did not preserve forensic evidence, and also failed to contact the family members of a few of those who were killed.

Citing another case, the SIT noted that the investigating officer’s inability to get a few of the accused punished despite “overwhelming evidence” was “surprising”. It added that this showed that the investigating officer and the authorities were “not interested in getting the culprits punished”.

“There must have been serious lapses on the part of the prosecution,” the report alleged.

Judges handed acquittals ‘in routine manner’

The report found faults with the way certain judges had conducted the trial as well, stating that the judges handed acquittals “in a routine manner”.

It pointed out several loopholes in the trial: “None of the judgments on record show that the judges were alive to the situation of 1984 riots and were alive to the fact that for delay in lodging FIRs and statement of witnesses, the victims were not responsible.”

Police officer ‘conspired’ with rioters

The Dhingra panel report noted that the state should have preferred appeals against the acquittal judgments in the case mentioned by it, and should now explore the possibility of filing appeals.

It also alleged the involvement of one inspector Survir Singh Tyagi, then SHO of Kalyanpuri police station, “in a conspiracy with rioters”.

“It was a case where Insp. Survir Singh Tyagi deliberately disarmed local Sikhs of their licensed arms so that the rioters could make them victims and cause loss of life and property.”

Tyagi was suspended from service, but reinstated and promoted as an assistant commissioner of police later. The report has recommended that his case be referred to the riot cell of Delhi Police for appropriate action.