Sajjan’s acquittal: Delay weakens accountability for 1984 riots

THE acquittal of former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar by a Delhi court in the Janakpuri-Vikaspuri violence case once again underscores the tragic dissonance between legal outcomes and moral accountability in the long shadow of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. More than four decades after one of independent India’s gravest episodes of communal violence, the criminal justice system continues to struggle with the burdens of delay, eroded evidence and fading memories. The court’s verdict rests on a familiar and troubling foundation: the inability of the prosecution to establish culpability beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses, many of whom testified decades after the events, were found to be inconsistent or reliant on hearsay. From a strictly legal standpoint, the judgment adheres to the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. Yet, for survivors and families of victims, such reasoning offers little solace.

Notably, this acquittal does not absolve Sajjan Kumar of responsibility in the broader context of the 1984 violence. He remains incarcerated, serving life sentences in other riot-related cases where courts found sufficient evidence of instigation and complicity. Nonetheless, each acquittal in a separate case feeds the perception that justice for 1984 remains fragmented and incomplete.

The Janakpuri-Vikaspuri case also highlights a deeper institutional failure. The delay in registering FIRs, the reopening of cases decades later and the heavy reliance on oral testimony reveal how systemic inertia crippled the prospects of timely justice. When investigations begin years after the crime, courts are left adjudicating history rather than evidence. The lesson is clear. Communal violence cases demand swift, professional investigation and witness protection from the outset. Justice delayed, as the 1984 riots painfully demonstrate, is not merely justice denied. It is justice diminished, both for victims and for the rule of law itself.