Jagdish Tytler moves Delhi High Court against order framing charges in 1984 riots case

Congress leader Jagdish Tytler moved the Delhi High Court on Monday challenging an order passed by a trial court framing charges against him on his role in a murder of three people in north Delhi during the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 [Jagdish Tytler vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.].

A special judge hearing CBI cases had framed charges of murder, unlawful assembly, defiling place of worship, mischief, house trespassing, theft, rioting and promoting enmity under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Tytler.

As per Tytler's plea before the High Court, the charges against him are baseless as he was not named in the FIR, Delhi Police’s chargesheet or in CBI chargesheets.

Further, no action was recommended against him in the chargesheets filed by CBI, he claimed.

All accused persons have been acquitted, his plea said.

Further, Tytler highlighted how the CBI had initially filed a closure report in the matter.

However, the agency is now seeking to rely on the statements of witnesses who had earlier deposed in favour of Tytler in 2008. These witnesses, who had earlier said that they never saw Tytler indulging in any violent acts, have now claimed that they were scared to speak freely due to Tytler’s political clout, Tytler pointed out.

It is also Tytler's case that the CBI overlooked statements of witnesses who said that they had seen Tytler at Teen Murti Bhawan at the time when riots broke out.

"The present case is a classic example of grave violation of Article 21 wherein after a series of reports filed by the investigating agency giving a clean chit to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is now being made to face trial in a case where no offence is made out against him," the plea claimed.

Tytler also highlighted that he is 80 years old, suffering from kidney problems, prostate cancer and was tested positive for Covid-19 on two occasions and has a history of heart disease having undergone biopsy.

This is classic case of “witch hunt and harassment” for an incident that occurred four decades ago in which he had no role, his petition said.