Sajjan Kumar, a former parliamentarian, was convicted in 2018 for his disreputable and notorious role in the mass killings of Sikhs during the violence that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in November 1984. He died on August 20, 2026, bringing back painful memories of the communal violence and questions about the prolonged pursuit of justice. 

While critics have pointed to the mischaracterisation of the violence, victims’ families have expressed little consolation at his passing, instead referring to Sajjan Kumar’s death as “an abrupt end to the battle that they had hoped would culminate in the harshest punishment.” Using this observation as our segue, we argue that Kumar’s political downfall, incarceration and eventual passing should not distract us from the fundamental issues of criminal justice, particularly questions around police investigation, political opportunism and  vendetta in the dispensing of justice.

Moving beyond issues of the deservingness or ‘appropriate’ nature of karma for perpetrators and/or impacts of inter-generational trauma within families, this essay focuses on the content of justice in a society fractured along multiple cleavages that are beginning to assume even greater salience today.

Sajjan Kumar’s conviction and incarceration

Elected multiple times as an MP from Outer Delhi, Kumar was convicted in 2018, nearly three decades later, for his role in provoking mobs and extolling murderous violence against the Sikh community in 1984, at Palam Colony.

As a politician, Kumar exerted enough political and street-level clout to hold even a team of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials hostage when they attempted to follow court orders and secure his custody in 1991. That it took the criminal justice system over three-decades to convict him is in equal measure an indictment of a sluggish judiciary and an indication of street power wielded by politicians, thwarting accountability measures in post-colonial India. 

One conviction, but a larger failure

Kumar’s conviction could be taken as proof that the system eventually dispenses justice. However, focusing on this singular conviction potentially overlooks the multiple other instances in which the judiciary missed opportunities to extend similar relief to aggrieved families.

Even in Kumar’s case, it was only after persistent efforts of individuals over 30-plus years that only one leader could be held accountable. Tellingly, the families and descendants of the victim-survivors residing in Tilak Vihar, while commemorating the 40th anniversary of the pogroms in 2024, put up a flex-banner declaring: “Justice Denied.” This despite Kumar having been convicted six-years ago. Why? 

Below, we present an analysis of two judgements that acquitted Kumar of his crimes but symbolically showcased how the judiciary could become complicit in perpetuating injustices against victims of massacres, leading to the kind of exasperated declarations noted above by the residents of Tilak Vihar.

Photos taken during the PUDR investigation in the first week of November, 1984, shortly after the anti-Sikh pogrom. In this photo, affected families are seen leaving their homes after the violence. Photo: Sudesh Vaid, IP College, Delhi.

In a verdict delivered by the district and sessions court (Karkardooma), North-East Delhi, CBI vs. Sajjan Kumar & Ors. 2013, involving the killings of five Sikhs in Raj Nagar, the court convicted all the accused apart from Kumar, despite the ‘star-witness’ Jagdish Kaur’s testimony naming Kumar to the CBI as having delivered speeches provoking communal enmity and bearing culpability for the rampage that followed, which consumed the lives of her husband, son and cousins.

What defied simple logic was the court’s acknowledgment of the quality of Jagdish Kaur’s testimony, without embellishments, inconsistencies or falsehoods, right from her deposition to the Ranganath Misra Commission of Enquiry in 1985, instituted to probe the pogrom. Ironically, despite agreeing with the quality of her testimony, the court acquitted Kumar, citing the non-appearance of his name in the original consolidated first information report (FIR) registered in 1984.

The second case, adjudicated in 2024 at the Rouse Avenue District Court, CBI vs. Sajjan Kumar & Ors. 2023-2024, also acquitted Kumar. This time, the judge chose to extend to Kumar the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when determining both his location Palam Colony on November 1, 1984, and the extent of his involvement in actually leading the mobs to violence. Additionally, while multiple witnesses maintained that they had named Kumar, the court did not probe why his name was absent from any document till the CBI was involved, following the Nanavati Commission. 

What is missing from the judgements?

In fact,........

© The Wire