{"id":72,"date":"2005-08-22T01:03:18","date_gmt":"2005-08-22T05:03:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/2005\/08\/22\/delhi-police-registered-636-cases-in"},"modified":"2005-08-22T01:03:18","modified_gmt":"2005-08-22T05:03:18","slug":"delhi-police-registered-636-cases-in-1984-pogroms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/2005\/08\/22\/delhi-police-registered-636-cases-in-1984-pogroms\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi police registered 636 cases in 1984 pogroms"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Delhi police claim to have registered 636 cases<\/A> regarding the 1984 pogroms of Sikhs, and to have secured convictions in <\/FONT>37 cases. These low conviction rates are another indication of impunity for the <\/FONT>perpetrators of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

ENSAAF’s report Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs<\/A> in India reveals the systematic and organized <\/FONT>manner in which state institutions, such as the Delhi Police and Congress (I) officials, perpetrated mass murder in November <\/FONT>1984 and later justified the violence in inquiry proceedings. The report also demonstrates that police officers not only <\/FONT>passively observed the violence, but also actively participated in the attacks and made promises of impunity to assailants, <\/FONT>and that at all times, the police and their superiors had sufficient force and knowledge to effectively counter the violence. <\/FONT>Page 97 of the report states:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

Grave lapses in police investigations, delays in filing cases, the failure to identify and investigate prosecution <\/FONT>witnesses, the deliberate misrecording of witness statements, and the failure to comply with legal procedures precluded <\/FONT><\/EM>effective prosecutions.<\/EM> <\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

Police authorities have revealed that although 636 cases were registered, 182 and 113 persons were let off by the local <\/FONT>police and Special Riot Cell, respectively, when they could not find substantive evidence against them. Further, although the Kusum Latta Mittal Commission and the Justice Aggarwal Committee had recommended action against 147 police officials, action <\/FONT>could not be taken against 42 of them because they had retired. <\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

The Ministry of Home Affairs processed only 8 of the remaining 105 officers; the rest were processed by the Government of <\/FONT>National Capital Territory of Delhi or by the Delhi Police.<\/FONT><\/EM><\/P>
\n

However, the Home Ministry soon exonerated 5 officers, finding no substantive evidence against them.<\/EM><\/FONT><\/P>
\n

The inquiry against the then Additional Commissioner of Police Mr H C Jatav was concluded with imposition of penalty of 30 <\/FONT>per cent cut in his pension for a period of five years. Inquiry initiated against the then DCP Mr Chandra Prakash was <\/FONT>completed but final order could not be served upon him because of a restraint order passed by the Delhi High Court.<\/FONT><\/EM><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi police claim to have registered 636 cases regarding the 1984 pogroms of Sikhs, and to have secured convictions in 37 cases. These low conviction rates are another indication of impunity for the perpetrators of the 1984 massacre of Sikhs. ENSAAF’s report Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1472],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1472"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1197"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/jaskaran\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}