On 23 February 2020, protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in northeast Delhi escalated into communal violence. Over the next four days, neighbourhoods such as Jaffrabad, Maujpur, Mustafabad and Bhajanpura witnessed gunfire, arson and mob clashes. By the time calm returned, 53 people were dead and hundreds injured, marking the deadliest episode of violence in Delhi in decades.
Six years later, the courtrooms are still active
In the weeks following the violence, Delhi Police registered more than 750 cases across northeast Delhi. Investigations were assigned to special teams, and over 400 chargesheets were eventually filed, according to police disclosures. Prosecutions ranged from rioting and arson to murder and criminal conspiracy.
But the outcomes, six years on, reveal a judicial record far more uneven than the scale of the initial crackdown suggested.
A Record of Acquittals
According to a February 2025 analysis by The Indian Express, of 109 riot-related cases in which verdicts have been delivered, 90 resulted in acquittals and 19 in convictions. That means roughly 82% of the decided cases ended in acquittal.
In several of those acquittals, district courts cited familiar reasons: unreliable identification evidence, hostile witnesses, contradictory police testimony, or failure to establish specific roles played by accused persons during the violence.
In several judgments, courts emphasised that mere presence in a riot-affected area cannot substitute for proof of participation in a specific criminal act. In some judgments, judges observed that investigation appeared “mechanical,” or that prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Such findings have been recorded across multiple police station jurisdictions in northeast Delhi
At the same time, there have been convictions. In 2023, a Delhi court convicted nine accused in a riot-related case involving arson and theft. In 2025, another bench convicted six individuals for rioting and vandalism linked to the February violence. These convictions demonstrate that courts have not dismissed all prosecutions.
But numerically, acquittals dominate the verdict record so far.
Murder Cases and Ongoing Trials
The riot docket is not limited to property damage or unlawful assembly. Several cases involve allegations of murder.
Some of these trials are ongoing. In others, courts have acquitted accused persons after finding the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Many remain pending in district courts.
The case of Ankit Sharma, a 26-year-old Intelligence Bureau staffer whose body was found in a drain in Chand Bagh on 26 February 2020, remains under judicial scrutiny. His killing drew immediate national attention, and charges including murder and conspiracy were filed. The trial process has involved extensive witness examination and procedural litigation, and proceedings continue.
Similarly, cases related to the death of Head Constable Ratan Lal — killed while deployed in Maujpur during the violence — have moved through the courts over the years, with charges framed and arguments heard.
For families of civilians such as Ashfaq Hussain, Rahul Thakur, Mubarak Hussain and others killed during those four days, the legal path has been less visible. Their deaths were recorded in 2020. Tracking the precise status of each homicide case now requires navigating separate FIRs, cluster trials and court orders.
There is no single public database that maps the 53 deaths to current case status — whether concluded, acquitted, convicted or pending.
Judicial Criticism of Investigation
Several acquittal orders over the past two years have pointed to investigative shortcomings.
In some cases, courts noted delayed FIR registration or failure to conduct proper identification procedures. In others, judges flagged inconsistencies in witness statements or insufficient linkage between the accused and specific acts of violence.
In a 2025 riot-related case before the Karkardooma Courts, involving allegations of arson and murder during the 2020 Delhi violence, the trial court acquitted multiple accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their specific role through credible and reliable evidence.
These judicial observations do not invalidate every riot case. But they highlight the evidentiary challenges involved in large-scale communal violence prosecutions.
The complexity of riot situations — multiple actors, chaotic scenes, overlapping allegations — places a heavy evidentiary burden on investigators. Courts have observed that the burden of proof remains unchanged even in riot prosecutions.
The Conspiracy Cases
Separate from individual FIRs relating to specific incidents of violence, a broader conspiracy case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has continued to move through the courts. Activists including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were arrested in connection with allegations of a larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 violence.
In recent proceedings, the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid, and Sharjeel Imam remains in custody in the larger UAPA conspiracy case, with bail denied in those proceedings. The litigation has centred on questions of evidentiary standards under the UAPA and the threshold for granting bail in cases invoking anti-terror legislation.
Six years after the riots, the conspiracy case remains under trial, with key accused still in custody and proceedings ongoing in the Delhi courts.
A Fragmented Ledger
The headline figure — 53 dead — remains widely cited in political and media discourse. But the legal aftermath of those deaths is far less visible.
To understand what has happened in each case, one must piece together court reporting, district court orders and legal updates scattered across different proceedings. There is no consolidated public ledger mapping the present status of every homicide case.
Some cases have ended in acquittal. Some have resulted in conviction. Many remain pending.
The acquittal rate in decided riot cases — as reported by The Indian Express — reflects courts’ findings in multiple cases that evidence was insufficient or unreliable. At the same time, courts have held that criminal liability must be established through proof, not assumption.
Six years is long enough for patterns to emerge. It is also long enough for public attention to fade.
What Six Years Reveal
The northeast Delhi riots lasted four days. The judicial process has lasted six years — and continues. The police response was extensive in scale, with hundreds of chargesheets filed. The court outcomes so far show a high rate of acquittals in decided cases and a significant number of ongoing trials.
This record does not support a single narrative. It is neither a story of complete impunity nor one of swift, comprehensive accountability. It is a story of fragmentation — of prosecutions spread across hundreds of cases, verdicts delivered unevenly, and serious charges still pending adjudication.
For families who lost relatives in February 2020, the timeline is longer than the headlines suggest. The violence ended in 2020. The cases have not.
