Latest › Delhi High Court › Criminal › Criminal Procedure › 5 October 2026
High Court declines independent inquiry, compensation and fresh guidelines over December 2019 Jamia police action
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Date of judgment
- 5 October 2026
- Case
- W.P.(C)/13469/2019
- Parties
- ANSHU KAPOOR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Bench
- CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Summary
A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, has dismissed a batch of eight writ petitions arising from the events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019, in the backdrop of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed NRC. The petitioners had sought an independent judicial commission, court-monitored committee or Special Investigation Team, compensation for injuries and alleged unlawful detentions, guidelines on police action inside educational institutions, and preservation of evidence.
The Court held that the case did not fall within the narrow category of exceptional cases that justify use of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It noted that two FIRs had been registered and investigated by a Special Investigation Team of the Crime Branch and charge-sheets filed, that the National Human Rights Commission had inquired into the incidents and reported on 18.05.2020, and that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the University had been dismissed on 03.02.2021 and not challenged. The Court stressed that this was not a finding on the merits of the allegations or on the culpability of any individual.
The petitions were filed by different petitioners after the police action of 15.12.2019. The Supreme Court had earlier, on 17.12.2019, declined to set up a single committee and left the aggrieved persons to approach the High Courts concerned. Several prayers had become infructuous by passage of time, and the arguments were confined to the surviving reliefs. The Court did not interfere in respect of the incidents at Aligarh Muslim University, where the Allahabad High Court Division Bench had requested the NHRC to undertake a complete inquiry.
The question before the court
- Whether an independent commission, SIT or transfer of investigation should be ordered for the alleged police excesses at Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 and 15 December 2019
- Whether public law compensation and medical reimbursement could be awarded in writ proceedings on disputed facts
- Whether fresh guidelines on police action during protests within educational institutions were needed
What each side argued
- Petitioners (Ms. Indira Jaising, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Mr. Salman Khurshid): police entered the campus, including the library, without permission of the University and without need once the crowd had retreated; the NHRC found the tear gas use in the library avoidable; police cannot inquire into their own conduct, so an independent fact-finding body or SIT was needed.
- Petitioners on compensation: students suffered grievous injuries, one losing vision in one eye, and no State compensation was paid; relying on Rudul Sah, Bhim Singh and Nilabati Behera, the Court could award public law compensation.
- Petitioners on guidelines: the events showed need for safeguards on police entry into campuses and use of force, relying on D.K. Basu, Ramlila Maidan and Anita Thakur and the Model Police Manual.
- Respondents (Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG): most petitioners are not direct victims and the petitions are PILs on criminal investigation; the FIRs, SIT investigation, charge-sheets and the unchallenged NHRC report of 18.05.2020 already exist; a petitioner had approached the NHRC and this was not disclosed.
- Respondents: the injuries and force used are disputed, the NHRC made compensation recommendations which the petitioners did not pursue, existing law already governs police action, and the CCTV footage has been preserved as stated in the affidavit dated 05.05.2023.
The court's decision
The Court first recorded that its power under Article 226 to direct investigation by an independent agency is wide but extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly, as laid down by the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and followed in K.V. Rajendran, Sakiri Vasu and Romila Thapar. It also referred to Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, Simranjit Singh Mann and Tehseen Poonawalla on the limits of public interest litigation in criminal matters.
On the prayer for an independent mechanism, the Court found that the State machinery had not remained inactive. FIR Nos. 242/2019 and 298/2019 were investigated by a Crime Branch SIT and charge-sheets were filed, the NHRC examined the incidents and gave a detailed report that no petitioner challenged, and the Section 156(3) application of the University was dismissed and attained finality. The NHRC report is not binding and is no substitute for judicial adjudication or criminal investigation, but the petitioners' dissatisfaction with the outcome could not justify displacing those processes. The Court rejected the proposition that every allegation against police personnel needs an outside agency, saying actual or demonstrable institutional bias, mala fides, suppression or failure to investigate must be shown, and none was placed before it. Whether force was excessive involves appreciation of evidence and over six years had passed.
On compensation, the Court accepted that constitutional courts can award compensation as a public law remedy, but said Rudul Sah, Bhim Singh and Nilabati Behera involved violations that were admitted, established or capable of determination without a detailed inquiry. Here there were two sharply divergent narratives and the NHRC accepted neither fully. Relying on Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa v. Sukamani Das, it held disputed facts requiring evidence are unsuited to writ proceedings. It also noted that the petitioners did not pursue the NHRC's compensation recommendations, including those who claimed personal injuries.
On guidelines, the Court noted that police entered after the protest had turned violent and the crowd moved into the campus, that the right to protest does not extend to violence, that University authorities should ordinarily be informed where circumstances permit but this is not an absolute condition, and that existing law already requires necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. No separate rules were needed, and nothing in the judgment approves every act attributed to the police. The prayer for preservation of evidence was not pursued further because the State had stated on affidavit that the footage was preserved and no deliberate destruction was shown.
The writ petitions were dismissed, pending applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs. The Court clarified that any competent authority or court may act in respect of a specific offence or individual grievance, and that any person may pursue compensation or other remedies before the appropriate forum.
Precedents referred to
- State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571
- K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409
- Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753
- Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746
- Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1
- Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SCC 525
Provisions referred to
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution of India
- Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗
Official source: High Court of Delhi. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.
This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.