The story of Kapil Mishra’s controversial speech and the subsequent legal battle is not just one of delayed justice; it’s a reflection of a deeply troubling reality in the Indian legal and political system. What began as an inflammatory speech that incited violence in the streets of Delhi has now become a five-year-long fight for accountability. In this episode we focus on how justice for the victims of the Delhi riots was delayed for years, the role of the police in obstructing this process, and the uncomfortable questions it raises about the functioning of the Indian justice system.
The Speech That Sparked Violence
On February 23, 2020, Kapil Mishra, a former BJP leader, made an incendiary speech in the context of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Delhi. Mishra, standing at a rally near the Jaffrabad metro station, said, “DCP Sir, we stand before you, and on behalf of all of us, I say this: Until Trump leaves, we will move peacefully, but after that, we won’t listen to you either if the roads are not cleared.” The tone was threatening, and the message was clear – if the protesters didn’t vacate the roads, the consequences would be severe.
Mishra’s words were perceived by many as an ultimatum, directly inciting violence. His speech was widely criticized for fueling the tensions in the already volatile atmosphere. Within hours, Delhi witnessed one of its worst communal riots in decades, claiming the lives of 53 people, injuring over 500, and leaving a city scarred by religious violence. The impact of his speech was undeniable. Yet, despite the clear role his words played in the violence, it took the Indian legal system five years to even initiate an FIR (First Information Report) against him.
The Fight for Accountability: Ilyas’ Struggle
The journey to justice for the victims of the Delhi riots and to hold Kapil Mishra accountable was neither quick nor easy. Mohammad Ilyas, a resident of Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, was among those who sought justice. He filed a complaint in 2020, calling for an FIR against Mishra, BJP leaders like Parvesh Verma and Anurag Thakur, and certain police officers. However, despite the gravity of the situation, the Delhi Police refused to file the FIR, even after the tragic consequences of Mishra’s speech were laid bare.
For Ilyas, the battle was just beginning. He was forced to go through a lengthy and exhausting legal process. His complaint was initially ignored by the police, and he faced threats from the very individuals he had named in his petition. Ilyas recounted his harrowing experience, saying, “The police refused to file an FIR against the people I named, and I was threatened with being locked up.” His persistence was remarkable, but the fact that his complaint went unnoticed for so long raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of the justice system.
Ilyas’ fight for accountability spanned years. His petition was heard before multiple judges, with the case being listed 24 times in 2020 alone. It was only in 2024 that the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi finally issued an order directing the police to register an FIR against Kapil Mishra for his role in the riots.
The Role of the Police: Delays and Obstructions
The question that looms large over this entire process is: why did the police delay filing an FIR against Kapil Mishra for so long? The police’s reluctance to act has been a constant source of frustration for victims and activists alike. Despite clear evidence of Mishra’s incitement to violence, the police failed to take immediate action.
When Ilyas’ complaint was heard in February 2025, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad told the court that the investigation into Mishra’s involvement in the riots had already been completed, and no objectionable evidence had been found against him. This statement, coming at such a late stage, raises the question: why didn’t the police follow the same investigative procedure for other accused individuals in the case? If the police had been so thorough in Mishra’s case, why weren’t similar investigations conducted for others accused of inciting violence?
The delay in the FIR and the leniency shown towards Mishra raise disturbing questions about how the police handled the case. Why was Mishra given a clean chit, and why was no immediate action taken? This contrasts sharply with the treatment meted out to activists like Umar Khalid, who were jailed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for years without evidence, let alone an FIR.
This discrepancy in the treatment of various individuals involved in the riots highlights a critical issue: why are some individuals allowed to escape justice while others are swiftly punished, even in the absence of clear evidence?
A Court’s Order: Finally, An FIR
It took five years, but the legal system finally took notice. In 2024, the court instructed the Delhi Police to file an FIR against Kapil Mishra for his role in the riots. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaibhav Chaurasia, accepted the complaint filed by Ilyas, stating that a cognizable offense had been committed. Under Indian law, a cognizable offense is one that can lead to arrest without a warrant, and it includes offenses like murder, rape, and rioting. The court’s order was a significant step toward holding Mishra accountable for his provocative speech and its consequences.
However, even this order came after years of struggle, both for Ilyas and for the victims of the riots. The fight to get the FIR filed was long and arduous, with countless delays and setbacks. The five-year delay speaks volumes about the inefficiencies of the legal system and the police’s reluctance to hold powerful figures accountable.
The Larger Issue: A Broken System
While Ilyas’ case and the filing of the FIR against Kapil Mishra represent a small victory for justice, they also highlight the deep flaws in India’s legal and police systems. If it takes five years for an FIR to be filed in such a high-profile case, what happens to ordinary citizens seeking justice? How many other victims of hate speech, violence, and political incitement have their cases ignored, delayed, or dismissed entirely?
In 2020, Harsh Mander, an activist, filed a petition demanding action against Mishra and other BJP leaders who had made hate speeches. However, the court only took action years later, despite Mander’s repeated efforts. His case, like many others, highlights how the legal system often works at a glacial pace, especially when powerful political figures are involved.
The case of Kapil Mishra also raises uncomfortable questions about the relationship between the police, the judiciary, and political power. The slow pace of justice, the repeated clean chits issued to Mishra, and the court’s questioning of the police’s investigative process suggest a system that is not always fair or efficient, especially when powerful political figures are involved.
The Delhi riots of 2020 were a dark chapter in the city’s history, and the delay in filing an FIR against Kapil Mishra only adds to the pain of the victims. The police’s failure to act swiftly and the judiciary’s delayed response have left many wondering whether justice is reserved for those in power or whether it is truly blind.
It is crucial for the legal system to learn from this case and ensure that such delays do not happen in the future. Justice must be swift, especially in cases that involve the lives of ordinary citizens. The victims of the Delhi riots deserve more than just an FIR after five years of delay. They deserve closure, accountability, and a system that holds all individuals, regardless of their political status, to the same standards of justice.
The fight for justice in the case of Kapil Mishra’s inflammatory speech may have finally resulted in an FIR, but the journey is far from over. It will take time to ensure that Mishra, and others like him, are held accountable for their actions. However, this case highlights the flaws in the legal and political systems, where justice is often delayed, and powerful individuals are given a free pass.
As the court order to file an FIR against Kapil Mishra shows, justice may eventually prevail, but only after a long, difficult, and often painful battle. This case serves as a reminder that the struggle for justice is not always quick or easy, but it is worth every effort.