Delhi Court Overturns Magistrate Order, Mandates Fresh Investigation Into Kapil Mishra's Role in 2020 Delhi Riots

The Rouse Avenue Court has reserved its decision on petitions submitted by Kapil Mishra and the Delhi Police.

New Delhi:

On Monday, the Rouse Avenue Court approved revision petitions filed by Law Minister Kapil Mishra and the Delhi police. The magistrate's ruling has been set aside, with instructions for Delhi police to investigate Mishra's involvement in the North East Delhi Conspiracy case.

Special judge Dig Vinay Singh overturned the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's (ACJM) order concerning the February 23 incident. Delhi police had previously stated they had already examined Kapil Mishra's role in the riot conspiracy and found no evidence against him.

The special court has instructed the trial court to conduct a hearing on the complaint according to legal procedures. The detailed order will be uploaded by the court today.

In April 2025, a Magistrate court had directed Delhi police to further investigate Kapil Mishra and others regarding their connection to the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy. Mishra subsequently challenged this order.

Delhi police also contested the trial court's order before the Sessions Court.

On September 25, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi reserved its ruling on petitions filed by BJP leader Kapil Mishra and the Delhi Police, which challenged a trial court's directive for additional investigation into the alleged broader conspiracy behind the 2020 North East Delhi Violence.

The directive for further investigation was issued by a Magistrate's court following a complaint filed by Mohd. Ilyas specifically targeting Mishra's alleged involvement in the riots.

In response, the Delhi Police, through Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, argued that Mishra had already been investigated and no incriminating evidence was discovered.

Mishra further alleged a coordinated attempt to frame him, citing WhatsApp group conversations and social media campaigns like #ArrestKapilMishra as elements of a narrative-building effort.

In their written submissions, the police referenced the chargesheet and highlighted discussions within WhatsApp groups, such as DPSG, suggesting certain individuals were actively promoting allegations against Mishra.

Delhi Police maintained that despite a thorough investigation, Mishra's name did not appear in any of the 751 FIRs registered regarding the riots.

During earlier proceedings, the Court instructed police to provide the charge sheet digitally to all respondents. It also maintained an interim stay on the trial court's order for further investigation. Mishra's legal team contended that no additional probe could be initiated without filing a new FIR, while police questioned the magistrate's jurisdiction, noting the case was already under a special court's purview.

The trial court issued this directive in response to a complaint filed by Mohd. Iliyas, who was represented by Advocate Mehmood Pracha.