Sikhitihasਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ

The inquiries into the 1984 killings, from 1984 to 2020

1984 ਦੇ ਕਤਲੇਆਮ ਦੀਆਂ ਜਾਂਚਾਂ, 1984 ਤੋਂ 2020 ਤੱਕ

·Ghallughara & Kharku Sangharsh

A guide to the commissions, committees and special investigation teams that inquired into the November 1984 killings of Sikhs, with what each found and what became of it.


Who: The bodies set up from 1984 to 2020 to inquire into the November 1984 killings of Sikhs, and the governments that set them up. The killings are on their own page.

What: The Delhi High Court listed in 2025 nine bodies before the Nanavati Commission: Marwah, Misra, Dhillon, Ahuja, Kapur-Mittal, Jain-Banerjee, Poti-Rosha, Jain-Aggarwal and Narula. Dates follow the Nanavati report's digest, with other sources where they differ.

  • Citizens' Commission, from 26 November 1984: five eminent citizens under Justice S. M. Sikri began work on their own initiative.
  • Marwah inquiry, from November 1984: Ved Marwah, an additional commissioner of police, began taking statements on the police role. The Centre set up the Misra Commission before he finished, and the Delhi High Court says his statements were not handed over "for unexplained reasons".
  • Misra Commission, 1985 to 1986: a one-man inquiry under Justice Ranganath Misra, constituted on 26 April 1985 according to the Delhi High Court, reporting in August 1986. It ruled out the Congress (I) and its leaders as organisers, though some members took part, and found the police indifferent or negligent and the Army called late.
  • Dhillon Committee, 1985: Gurdial Singh Dhillon on rehabilitation; The Tribune says the Government did not accept its call for compensation for rejected insurance claims.
  • Ahuja Committee, appointed 23 February 1987: R. K. Ahuja counted 2,733 dead in Delhi. His report is dated 1 June 1988 in the Nanavati report and August 1987 in The Tribune.
  • Kapur-Mittal Committee, appointed 23 February 1987: Justice Dalip Kapur and Kusum Lata Mittal wrote separate reports in 1990, and the Home Ministry acted on Mittal's, which indicted 72 police officers.
  • Jain-Banerjee Committee, appointed 23 February 1987: Justice M. L. Jain and A. K. Banerji were to examine cases not registered or badly investigated. An injunction stalled it and the Delhi High Court quashed its appointment.
  • Poti-Rosha Committee, March 1990: Justice P. Subramanian Poti and P. A. Rosha took over its task on 23 March.
  • Jain-Aggarwal Committee, 1990 to 1993: Justice J. D. Jain and D. K. Aggarwal examined 403 FIRs and 1,084 affidavits, found casual investigations and named 90 police officials.
  • Narula Committee, December 1993 to January 1994: set up by the Delhi government under Justice Ranjit Singh Narula; ThePrint says it recommended cases against three Congress leaders.
  • Nanavati Commission, 2000 to 2005: notified on 8 May 2000, reported on 9 February 2005. It found the attacks from 1 November organised, with local Congress (I) leaders and workers inciting or helping the mobs, and "credible evidence" that Jagdish Tytler very probably had a hand in organising attacks. It found no evidence against Rajiv Gandhi or other top leaders. On 24 October 2005 the Home Ministry sent the cases against Dharam Dass Shastri, Tytler and Sajjan Kumar to the CBI.
  • Garg Commission, to 2015: Justice T. P. Garg's inquiry for Haryana, on Hondh-Chillar. Sikh bodies said it dealt with compensation, not responsibility.
  • Mathur Committee and the 2015 SIT: Justice G. P. Mathur said a proper investigation had not been conducted. A three-member SIT followed in February 2015 and closed 186 cases in December 2017.
  • Supreme Court SIT, 2018 to 2020: on 11 January 2018 the Supreme Court ordered a new team under Justice S. N. Dhingra to examine those 186 cases. The Tribune says its report found that police and administration seemed intent on hushing up the cases. On 15 January 2020 the Centre said it accepted the recommendations.

Where: New Delhi, and Haryana.

Why it mattered: The Delhi High Court wrote in December 2018 that law and order had broken down in a "free for all" and that many cases still needed proper investigation. That court sentenced Sajjan Kumar to life for the Raj Nagar killings, in a case the CBI took up after the Nanavati report.

Read it on the timelineSee its threads

Sources

  1. Report of the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry (1984 anti-Sikh riots), Volume I, Part I, pp. 1-9 (the Commission's digest of earlier inquiries) and pp. 179-184, Government of India (copy on the Delhi High Court website). delhihighcourt.nic.in
  2. Court on its Own Motion v. Mahender Singh Manan, Crl. Rev. P. 248/2017, judgment of 11 August 2025, paragraphs 8 to 10, Delhi High Court. delhihighcourt.nic.in
  3. State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar, Crl.A. 1099/2013, judgment of 17 December 2018, paragraphs 42 to 53, 152 and 154 and the order of 17 December 2018 (copy), Delhi High Court (copy hosted by Jurist). jurist.org
  4. 4 commissions, 9 committees and 2 SITs: the long road to justice for 1984 Sikh killings (Deeksha Bhardwaj, 16 November 2018), ThePrint. theprint.in
  5. Chronology of the commissions and committees on the 1984 killings (9 August 2005), The Tribune. tribuneindia.com
  6. Damning SIT report puts role of cops, judges under scanner (January 2020), The Tribune. tribuneindia.com
  7. 1984 anti-Sikh riots: SIT submits report to SC after completing probe (29 November 2019), LiveLaw. livelaw.in
  8. Sikh bodies flay Justice Garg panel report (28 March 2015), The Tribune. tribuneindia.com
  9. Sikri Commission Report: Introduction (statement of 16 November 1984, members and method), Citizens' Commission, 1985 (text hosted by AllAboutSikhs). allaboutsikhs.com

I know how they're connected

Tell us how these two are connected and where it is written. The site's owner reviews every contribution before anything is published; nothing goes live on its own.

What you send is kept only to review the connection. Claims about living people and about 1984 always get the owner's own review.

Suggest a correction

Found something wrong? Tell us what should change, link a source that shows it, and say why that source is right.

What you send is kept only to review the correction. Your email is never published.