The conviction of former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar in yet another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case is a significant legal and political milestone in India's history. The judgment by the Rouse Avenue Court underscores the judiciary’s resolve to bring long-delayed justice to the victims of the horrific communal violence that followed the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This is the second life sentence for Kumar, who was previously convicted in 2018 for his role in the Delhi Cantonment riots. His involvement in the killings of two Sikhs, Jaswant Singh and his son, Tarundeep Singh, in Delhi’s Saraswati Vihar on November 1, 1984, has now led to additional penalties, reaffirming his direct participation in the orchestrated mob violence against the Sikh community.
In addition to life imprisonment, Kumar has been sentenced under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reflecting the severity of his crimes. He has been handed a two-year sentence under Section 147 for rioting, a three-year sentence along with a fine under Section 148 for rioting with deadly weapons, and a seven-year sentence under Section 308 for attempting culpable homicide with intent to cause death or serious harm. The prosecution argued that these punishments were necessary given the brutal nature of the violence, which saw mobs targeting Sikh families, setting homes and businesses on fire, and carrying out indiscriminate killings.
The case against Kumar is part of the larger wave of legal proceedings aimed at holding those responsible for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots accountable. The riots erupted in the immediate aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her two Sikh bodyguards, which led to a violent backlash against the Sikh community, particularly in Delhi and other parts of North India. Thousands of Sikhs were killed, with their properties looted and destroyed, while law enforcement agencies were accused of either turning a blind eye or actively abetting the violence. Political leaders, including Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, and others, were widely accused of leading and inciting the mobs, ensuring maximum destruction and terror.
During the court proceedings, the prosecution demanded the death penalty for Sajjan Kumar, arguing that his crime fell under the "rarest of rare" category. In their written submission, the prosecution compared this case to the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, stating that while the latter involved the brutal crime against an individual, Kumar’s actions were part of a deliberate effort to exterminate an entire community. "The present case is more serious than the Nirbhaya case. In that case, a young woman was targeted, but here, people of a particular community were attacked," the prosecution argued. It further emphasized that the systematic targeting of Sikhs in 1984 amounted to genocide, warranting the harshest punishment under the law.
Despite the prosecution’s strong arguments for the death penalty, the court ultimately sentenced Kumar to life imprisonment. However, the Sikh community and victims’ families have expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict, calling for the death penalty instead. Sikh leader Gurlad Singh stated, "We will not accept anything less than the death penalty. We are not happy with the verdict of the court. We will appeal to the government to go to a higher court and announce the death penalty for Sajjan Kumar." Many within the community feel that justice delayed is justice denied, and the decades-long wait for accountability has only deepened the wounds inflicted by the riots.
One of the most damning aspects of this case is the revelation that Kumar, a sitting Member of Parliament at the time, not only failed to protect Sikh citizens but actively led violent mobs, encouraging them to attack Sikh homes and businesses. Witnesses recounted that Kumar, along with other political leaders, openly incited violence, assuring rioters that no legal consequences would follow. This level of political involvement in the riots has long been a source of controversy, with successive governments accused of shielding high-profile perpetrators. The fact that it took over three decades for Kumar to face justice speaks volumes about the challenges in prosecuting powerful politicians in India.
The larger impact of the 1984 riots has been devastating, not just in terms of the lives lost but also in terms of its socio-political consequences. The mass killings forced the migration of thousands of Sikhs from their homes, deeply scarring the community and altering the demographic landscape of several neighborhoods in Delhi and other cities. The violence also led to a prolonged sense of fear and alienation among Sikhs, with many feeling that the justice system had failed them. Over the years, various commissions and special investigation teams were formed to probe the riots, but convictions remained rare, fueling accusations of political interference and selective justice.
Kumar's conviction, while seen as a long-overdue step in the right direction, has reignited debates about the lack of accountability for other key figures implicated in the 1984 riots. Many families of victims are still awaiting justice, as cases against other prominent politicians, such as Jagdish Tytler, continue to drag on. Activists argue that unless all those responsible for the anti-Sikh riots are held accountable, justice will remain incomplete.
Beyond its legal implications, this case has significant political ramifications as well. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has often used the 1984 riots as a political tool against the Congress, accusing it of being complicit in the violence. Congress, on the other hand, has tried to distance itself from the actions of individual leaders like Sajjan Kumar and has made efforts in recent years to court the Sikh community by apologizing for the past. However, the legacy of the riots continues to haunt the party, with many still holding it responsible for failing to prevent the massacres.
Kumar's conviction also sends a broader message about the importance of legal accountability for communal violence. In a country that has witnessed multiple instances of large-scale riots, including the 2002 Gujarat riots and the 2020 Delhi riots, the need for swift and impartial justice remains crucial. Delayed convictions, as seen in Kumar’s case, often lead to a sense of disillusionment among victims and weaken public faith in the judiciary. The hope is that this verdict will serve as a precedent, ensuring that those who incite and lead communal violence—regardless of their political affiliations—are held accountable.
As Kumar begins his second life sentence, the battle for justice in the 1984 riots cases is far from over. Several other accused individuals are yet to be tried, and victims’ families continue to demand a more comprehensive reckoning with the past. While this judgment is a step forward, it remains to be seen whether it will pave the way for a more decisive and efficient legal process in similar cases of communal violence in India.
