[ad_1]
Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar, one of the most prominent political figures accused in the 1984 anti-Sikh violence, died on Thursday while serving a life sentence. His death once again puts the spotlight on the long delay in securing justice for the victims of the violence that killed 2,733 Sikhs in Delhi.
Kumar, 80, was convicted in two cases arising from the violence but was acquitted in another. His first conviction came in December 2018, 34 years after the riots, when the Delhi High Court overturned his acquittal by a trial court and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the killing of five Sikhs and the burning of a gurdwara in the Raj Nagar area of Delhi Cantonment.
The High Court was scathing about the manner in which the case had been investigated and pursued over the years. It said there had been an “abject failure” by the police to investigate the violence and described the case as one in which there appeared to have been “large-scale efforts to suppress” proceedings against Kumar.
“The criminals escaped prosecution and punishment for over two decades. It took as many as ten Committees and Commissions for the investigation into the role of some of them to be entrusted in 2005 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 21 years after the occurrence,” the high court had remarked.
Kumar’s role had come under scrutiny well before his eventual conviction. The Jain-Banerjee Committee recommended registration of a case against him in 1987. The Potti-Rosha Committee made a similar recommendation in 1990, followed by the Jain-Aggarwal Committee. The Narula Committee, which reviewed the earlier findings in 1993-94, again recommended registration of a case against Kumar.
The repeated recommendations did not translate into a prompt prosecution. The Nanavati Commission, constituted in 2000, later recorded that several witnesses had alleged Kumar’s involvement and found “credible material” to conclude that he was “probably involved as alleged by the witnesses”. It recommended that cases in which he had been specifically named but charge sheets had not been filed and which had been closed as untraced should be examined afresh.
Kumar’s other conviction came in February 2025, when a Delhi court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the killings of Jaswant Singh and his son Tarundeep Singh in Saraswati Vihar on November 1, 1984. The court described the offences as “undoubtedly brutal and reprehensible” but said his age and illnesses weighed in favour of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.
In January 2026, a Delhi court acquitted Kumar in the Janakpuri case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that most prosecution witnesses were hearsay witnesses or had failed to name Kumar for more than three decades. The court had said relying on the identification of the accused by such persons “would be risky and may lead to a travesty”.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court adopted a stringent approach towards Kumar after his conviction. While considering his repeated pleas for interim bail on medical grounds, the apex court declined to release him, despite his claims of deteriorating health. In September 2021, a Bench of Justices, S.K. Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, questioned why he should be treated as a “VIP” patient, noting that his medical condition was stable and improving. A year earlier, another Bench had observed that the case was “not a small case” while declining interim bail. The court instead relied on medical assessments and indicated that he could receive treatment as required while remaining in custody.
Kumar had been lodged in Delhi prisons since December 31, 2018, after his life sentence in the first 1984 case. He was initially lodged at Mandoli Jail before being transferred to Tihar, where he spent the remainder of his nearly eight-year imprisonment until his death on August 20, 2026.
At Tihar Central Jail, Kumar was lodged in Ward No. 15 of Jail No. 4, in the prison’s dedicated old-age and geriatric care unit, known as ‘Buzurg Ghar’. The facility is meant for inmates aged 65 and above.
A prison official described Kumar as a “political prisoner” and said he shared his cell with two sewadars — younger convicted inmates assigned to assist elderly prisoners with their daily physical needs.
Given his age and physical condition, Kumar was provided a wooden cot and mattress and was engaged in minimal physical work. His diet was also tailored to his needs, with soft meals such as daliya and khichdi, while he received regular medical attention.
According to the prison department, Kumar remained calm and well-behaved during his eight years in custody, with no complaints or disciplinary issues reported during his stay.
On August 20, he was referred to Safdarjung Hospital for general OPD care and age-related ailments, including hypertension, cataract, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and Parkinson’s disease. He had been undergoing treatment for these conditions at the hospital.
Kumar died while undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital at 12.20 p.m. on August 20.
The long history of Kumar’s cases shows the difficulty of prosecuting crimes decades after they occur. For the victims’ families, however, justice has come, in some cases, only after more than four decades of waiting.
Published – August 20, 2026 03:15 pm IST
[ad_2]
Source link