When violence erupted in northeast Delhi in February 2020, everyone expected justice to be quick. But as hundreds of riot-cases passed through the courts, a disturbing pattern emerged: in the vast majority of acquittals, judges have pointed out serious defaults—sometimes complete fabrication—in the evidence presented by investigating agencies. These are not technicalities of law but living creatures. Behind every name is an individual whose liberty, reputation, and dignity are at stake.
Among the most clear-cut testimonies is a media report that out of 93 acquittals up to end-August 2025, in 17 cases courts identified faked evidence or fabricated witnesses, or prosecuted the police for misconduct in constructing the case.For instance, in a New Usmanpur case, Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh observed that there was “egregious padding of evidence” by the police IO, resulting in “serious trampling of the rights of the accused.” A court also acquitted three accused upon observing that the police had fudged evidence and prepared a mechanical charge sheet without taking the steps to ensure the allegations were investigated.There have also been repeated court mentions regarding some major legal protection being ignored: no Test Identification Parade in the majority of cases, police-induced statements dictated or added to instead of volunteered, or accused not being named in FIRs by complainants but later named under coercion or by suggestion of police.
The cost in human terms is great. There are those who languished in jail for years to be finally acquitted. There are others with wrongful charges hanging over them. The judiciary’s disapproval—”fabricated”, “mechanically forwarded”, “foisted on the accused”—are strong words, proof that the judiciary knows that justice is not just verdict-orientated, but integrity of process too.But that is not enough. Several rulings have called for the leadership of the police to implement reforms: more robust supervision, IO accountability, better standards of witness interviewing, and greater adherence to procedure. These courts are trying to send a message—not to individual officers, but to the system: evidence must be credible; accused rights cannot be balanced against quick convictions.
Finally, each time a court rejects—or refuses to hear—fictitious or frivolous evidence, it upholds the idea that justice is not just punitive, but fair. And fairness, when stripped away, not only hurts people—it erodes public faith in the rule of law.
