JUSTICE NANAVATI COMMISSION OF INQUIRY (1984 ANTI-SIKH RIOTS) REPORT VOLUME – I I N D E X S.No. CONTENTS PAGE NOs. 1. PART-I INTRODUCTION 1 – 9 2. PART-II PROCEEDINGS 10 – 15 3. PART-III EVIDENCE A. GENERAL 16 – 18 B. NEW DELHI DISTRICT 18 – 27 C. CENTRAL DISTRICT 27 – 43 D. NORTH DISTRICT 43 – 58 E. SOUTH DISTRICT 58 – 77 F. EAST DISTRICT 77 – 100 G. WEST DISTRICT 100 – 123 H. OTHER EVIDENCE 123 - 138 4. PART-IV ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION A. GENERAL 139 B. NEW DELHI DISTRICT 139 – 144 C. CENTRAL DISTRICT 144 – 151 D. NORTH DISTRICT 151 – 157 E. SOUTH DISTRICT 157 – 164 F. EAST DISTRICT 164 – 167 G. WEST DISTRICT 168 – 169 H. HIGHER UPS 169 – 178 I. OVERALL CONSIDERATION 179 - 184 - - - PART - I INTRODUCTION The assassination of Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi on 31-10-1984, by her two Sikh security guards, led to violent attacks on Sikhs and their properties in Delhi and other parts of the country. The incidents of violence in Delhi started from the evening of 31-10-84. During the following two days fierce violence was let loose on the Sikhs and their properties. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed. Several others were injured. Their properties were looted and burnt on a very large scale. Though the incidents of violence continued till 5-11-84 the situation started improving from 3-11-84. As a result of these riots, hundreds of Sikhs had to leave their homes and take refuge in relief camps or in other safer places. Many Sikh families lost their male members and thus suffered great emotional and heavy financial loss. Bokaro Tehsil, Chas Tehsil and Kanpur were also badly affected. The Home Minister made a statement on the floor of the Rajya Sabha that the number of Sikhs killed in Delhi during November 1984 riots was 2146; 586 persons were said to have been killed in other parts of the country during that period. These anti-Sikh riots not only hurt the feelings of Sikhs but also shocked the conscience of all right-minded persons throughout the country. Considering the manner in which the violent attacks were made, it was felt that probably the attacks on Sikhs were organized by the Congressmen or their supporters or by some other organizations or associations. It was also felt that the Delhi Police was not only negligent in protecting the Sikhs and their properties but probably connived at or instigated such attacks. Considering the feelings of the Sikh community and criticism of the bodies concerned with protection of human rights and civil liberties, the Government of India appointed a Commission headed by Mr. Justice Ranganath Mishra, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 “ to inquire into the allegations in regard to the incidents of organized violence which took place in Delhi and also the disturbances which took place in the Bokaro Tehsil, Chas Tehsil and at Kanpur and to recommend measures which may be adopted for prevention of recurrence of such incidents.” Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission of Inquiry (hereafter referred to as Justice Mishra Commission) held an inquiry and found that the incidents which took place on 31-10-84 were by way of involuntary reaction of a deep sense of grief, anguish and hatred for the assassins. That spontaneous reaction of the people soon transformed itself into riotous activity with participation and monitoring thereof by anti-socials due to passivity of the Delhi police. The Commission also found that the police was either indifferent or negligent in performance of its duties while those incidents were taking place and at times it also connived at or participated in them. There was failure on the part of higher police officers to make a proper assessment of what was brewing in the city. The Commission ruled out participation by the Congress(I) Party or its leaders therein; but, came to the conclusion that some persons belonging to the Congress Party on their own did indulge or participate in the riots for considerations entirely their own. It also found that there was delay on the part of Delhi Administration i.e. the Lt.Governor and the Commissioner of Police in calling the Army, though about 5,000 Army men were available by mid night of October 31. Regarding the incidents, which happened at Kanpur and other places, the Commission found that the police at those places did not perform their role properly and their negligence and connivance was responsible for the loss of life and properties there. The Commission did not try to find out how many Sikhs were killed in Delhi and other places, which police officers and other persons were responsible for the loss of life and properties and against whom actions should be taken, as that would have necessitated a very detailed inquiry which it was not in a position to hold for the reasons stated in its report. It, therefore, recommended an inquiry by a high authority to inquire into the conduct of the police and to find out against which police officers action deserved to be taken. It also recommended appointment of a high officer to determine the number of Sikhs killed during those riots. It also made certain recommendations as regards payment of compensation to the victims, their rehabilitation, re-organization of the police, forming of combines of local residents and educating people. The Commission submitted its report to the Government of India in August 1986. 2 Pursuant to the recommendations made by that Commission, the Government on 23-02-87, appointed three Committees. A Committee consisting of Mr. Justice Dilip Kapoor, a retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and Ms. Kusum Lata Mittal, a retired Secretary to the Government of India, was appointed to inquire into the conduct of Delhi Police. Another Committee consisting of Mr. Justice M.L.Jain, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Shri E.N.Renision, a retired I.P.S. officer (later on replaced by Shri A.K.Banerji, a retired I.P.S. officer) was constituted to examine cases relating to riots in Delhi. Shri R.K.Ahuja, a Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, was directed to conduct an inquiry to find out the total number of Sikhs killed in Delhi during the riots, between 31-10-84 and 7-11-84, and to make appropriate recommendations regarding ex-gratia payments and other reliefs to their family members. Shri Ahuja after holding a detailed inquiry determined the total number of deaths at 2733. It made certain recommendations regarding reliefs to be given to the relatives of the victims and the procedure to be adopted for distributing those reliefs. It submitted its report to the Government on 1-6-1988. The Committee consisting of Mr.Justice K.Kapoor and Ms. Kusum Lata Mittal could not function amicably as there was difference of opinion amongst them with regard to the modalities to be adopted for conducting the inquiry. Ms. Kusum Lata Mittal was of the view that the Committee should examine only the available records and submit its report on the basis thereof. On the other hand Mr. Justice Kapoor was of the view that the Committee should collect other material, which was not on the record and submit its report after considering all the relevant material. Both the members submitted their reports separately. Ms. Kusum Lata Mittal submitted her report on 28-2-1990 and a key to the same on 1-3-1990. Mr.Justice Kapoor submitted his report on 1-3-1990 and his supplementary survey on 2-4-90. After examining the two reports, the Ministry of Home Affairs found that the report submitted by Mr. Justice Kapoor was a sort of sociological analysis of riots and that it dealt in generalities only and did not identify the delinquencies on the part of 3 individual police officials. The Government, therefore, decided to accept the report submitted by Ms. Kusum Lata Mittal and take action against the police officials on the basis thereof . 72 police officers were indicted for their lapses in controlling the riots. Ministry of Home Affairs was the disciplinary authority in respect of 6 of them. The Chief Secretary or the Lt. Governor was the disciplinary authority in respect of 14 and the Commissioner of Police for the remaining 52 officers. Out of those 72 officers, 13 had retired and 3 had expired before action could be initiated against them. 12 officers were exonerated. Departmental inquiry was quashed by the Central Administration Tribunal in one case. Pension was reduced in one case and three cases remained pending. As regards the remaining 39 non-gazetted police officers, inquiries were held against 35 officers. Out of them 32 were exonerated, 2 were censured and 1 was warned. Inquiries against 4 officials remained pending. Shri E. N. Renision resigned as a member of Jain-Renision Committee. He was replaced by Shri A. K. Banerji . Jain Banerji Committee could not make any progress because of an interim injunction granted by the Delhi High Court. Later on the notification appointing that Committee was quashed by the High Court as it was found that vesting of powers in the Committee was contrary to the provisions of the Delhi Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee on 23-3-1990 consisting of Shri P.Subramanian Poti, retired Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court as its Chairman and Shri P. A.Rosha, retired officer of the Indian Police Service as a member with the following terms of reference: a) To examine whether there were cases of omission to register or properly investigate offences committed in Delhi during the period of riots from 31st October, 1984 to 7th November 1984; b) To recommend to the Administrator, where necessary, the registration of Cases and their investigation. 4 c) To make suggestions to the Administrator where necessary, for the conduct of investigation and prosecution of cases. The Committee was further authorized to look into any papers relating to its terms of reference and to obtain such information, as it deemed necessary from the police and the prosecution agencies in order to carry out its functions. That Committee was reconstituted on 1-10-1990 by appointing Shri Aggarwal, a retired IPS Officer in place of Shri P.A.Rosha. Both Shri Poti and Shri Aggarwal relinquished their office on 22-9-1990 after completion of the tenure of six months. The reconstituted Committee of Mr.Justice J.D.Jain, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court and Shri D.K.Aggarwal started functioning from December 1990. It took into consideration 669 affidavits filed before Justice Mishra Commission. It also received 415 affidavits from affected persons and their family members. It looked into 403 FIRs recorded by the Delhi Police in respect of the riot cases. It found that as a result of not recording a separate or distinct FIR for each incident and by following a novel procedure of recording a general, vague and omnibus type of FIR covering many incidents, no proper investigation was done by the Police in respect of each incident/offence and even at the stage of trial proper evidence incident-wise was not produced. Mainly for these reasons most of the cases had ended in acquittal of the accused. The Committee also found that in most of the cases investigation carried out by the police was absolutely casual, perfunctory and faulty. Instead of recording statements of all concerned, including the eyewitnesses, the investigating officers, in most of the cases, recorded statements of only the complainants who were either widows, sons or other relatives of the persons killed; and, even those statements were laconic, cryptic and sketchy. No attempts were made by the investigating officers to find out witnesses to the incidents so as to collect direct evidence. No attempts were made to trace out the culprits and to effect recoveries of weapons or stolen/looted goods. Police had also adopted an illegal practice of calling upon the culprits to deposit the looted property quietly on the nearby roadsides and promising them that they would not be harmed. The Committee also found that many written reports of the incidents lodged by the victims or by their relatives 5 were not acted upon by the police. Another malpractice noticed by the Committee was that the Police had prepared a kind of format for the aggrieved persons for submitting their complaints and it mainly called for information regarding their looted or burnt properties and the quantum of loss suffered by them. It did not contain any column regarding names of the victims and the offenders. The Committee also noticed that in large number of cases, the incidents reported by the aggrieved persons were not reflected in the charge sheets even though those persons had spoken about them during the course of investigation of those offences. The charge sheets filed in the courts were mostly couched in general terms without specifically referring to each incident and several accused (in some cases numbering 100 or more) were put up together to stand their trial even though allegations against them were totally different. The result was that such cases ended in acquittal of the accused due to utter confusion and want of marshalling of evidence. No serious attempt was made by the Police to examine all relevant witnesses in the Court on the pretext that they were not traceable. In view of such serious lapses and derelictions of duty on the part of Police, the Committee recommended to the Government to take disciplinary action against the lower level defaulter police officials. As regards the Deputy Commissioners of Police and Assistant Commissioners of Police, the Committee observed that some of them had simply abdicated their responsibility of supervision and control over investigation of riots cases. The Committee also made certain suggestions regarding improvements to be made in the Police Organization and their training. Ms. Kusum Latta Mittal had recommended departmental actions against 72 police officials. Justice Jain Aggarwal Committee had identified 90 officials for the lapses committed by them. Thus the total number of police officials indicted by the two Committees was 147. The concerned authorities found that no departmental action could be taken against 42 officials either because they had expired or retired from the service. As regards the remaining 105, the Ministry of Home Affairs had processed the cases of 8 officers and the other 97 cases were processed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi or by the Delhi Police. Out of 8 officers, against whom proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 5 were exonerated, as charges against 6 them could not be substantiated. The inquiry against Additional Commissioner of Police, Shri H.C.Jatav was concluded with imposition of penalty of 30% cut in his pension for a period of five years. Enquiry initiated against DCP Shri Chandra Prakash was completed but final order could not be served upon him because of a restraint order passed by the Delhi High Court. Enquiry against DCP Shri Sewa Dass was delayed till 1998 because of a stay granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Now the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report to the Ministry and it is under process. The Government of National Capital of Delhi processed the cases of 97 officers against whom action was recommended. No action could be initiated by it against 29 persons as they had by that time expired or retired from service or the action against them had become time barred. No action was initiated against 9 persons as inquiries were already initiated against them on the basis of the recommendations made by the Kapoor- Mittal Committee. The Delhi Government also instituted 25 Criminal Cases against some of those 72 police officials. As there was wide spread demand from different sections of the public, particularly the Sikh community for an inquiry into several aspects of violence, abuse of authority, remissness and apathy of law enforcement agencies and those who were in position to exercise control over them, excesses committed and action taken or purported to be taken in the wake of criminal riots, the Central Government thought it necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and issued a notification to that effect on 08-05-2000. The terms of reference as mentioned in the said notification are set out below. “Terms of Reference: (i) The Commission shall make an inquiry with respect to the following matters: (a) to inquire into the causes and course of the criminal violence and riots targetting members of the Sikh community which took place in the 7 National Capital Territory of Delhi and other parts of the country on 31st October, 1984 and thereafter; (b) the sequence of the events leading to and all the facts relating to such violence and riots; (c) whether these heinous crimes could have been averted and whether there were any lapses or dereliction of duty in this regard on the part of any of the responsible authorities / individuals; (d) to inquire into the adequacy of the administrative measures taken to prevent and to deal with the said violence and riots; (e) to recommend measures which may be adopted to meet the ends of the justice; (f) to consider such matters as may be found relevant in the course of the inqiry. (ii) The inquiry by the Commission shall be in regard to: (a) complaints or allegations that may be made before the Commission by any individual or association in such form and accompanied by such affidavits as may be specified by the Commission, and (b) such instances relatable to paragraph 2(i)(a) to (f) as may be brought to its notice either by the Central Government or the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi or the State Governments concerned.” 8