The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to withdraw its previous directive ordering the Delhi government to distribute Rs 21 crore in compensation to the victims of the 2020 North East Delhi communal violence.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia disposed of the state government’s appeal against a single-judge order. While the bench did not alter the previous decisions, it allowed the state the liberty to formally challenge the original January 2025 payment order.
The compensation of approximately Rs 21.71 crore was recommended by the North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission, which was established in April 2020. This recommendation came in response to total victim claims amounting to around Rs 153.69 crore following the February 2020 riots, which claimed at least 53 lives and left more than 700 injured.
Government Arguments On Recovery Mechanism
Representing the Delhi government, standing counsel Sameer Vashisht argued that under a 2009 Supreme Court ruling, the financial liability for property destruction and injury must be borne by the actual perpetrators rather than the state.
However, the high court questioned this stance, noting that victims cannot independently seek out perpetrators for recovery. The bench asked whether the state had established a mechanism to recover these damages. Vashisht confirmed that no such mechanism is currently in place and noted that trials of the accused are still ongoing.
Political Shift And Legal Timeline
The legal dispute dates back to January 15, 2025, when a single-judge bench originally directed the state to release the funds. The then-ruling Aam Aadmi Party administration did not oppose the decision. However, after a new government assumed power in February 2025, the administration sought to recall the order in September 2025. The state claimed that a proxy counsel had mistakenly given a “no objection” without authorization from senior officials.
A single-judge bench dismissed the government’s recall plea on May 7, ruling that the claim of inadvertence was unreliable and pointing to significant delays in filing the application. On Monday, Chirayu Jain, the counsel representing the victims, opposed the state’s appeal. He argued that the government’s recall application was a delayed tactic initiated solely to avoid contempt of court proceedings following the political transition.
