H.R. Bhatti

H. R. Bhatti (Hari Ram Bhatti; also written Bhati and Bhatia in the records) was Station House Officer (SHO) of Sultanpuri police station in West Delhi in November 1984. Sultanpuri, a resettlement colony with many Sikh families, saw some of the heaviest killing of Sikhs in Delhi. Everything below is what Sikh witnesses told the inquiries or what an inquiry wrote, attributed; the sources found record no conviction of him.

What witnesses said

• Several women of Sultanpuri told the Nanavati Commission that he and Head Constable Jai Chand were with the mob, that he told Sikhs who had gathered to go home and threatened to fire if they came out, and that the attacks began soon after they went indoors (report, pp. 111 and 112).
• Prem Kaur said her husband was hit by a bullet fired by the SHO (p. 111); Pinia Singh said the SHO shot Tota Singh Mastana in his presence (p. 113); Moti Singh said that on 2 November the SHO fired at his son Roshan Singh, saying that no Sikh could get away while he was there (pp. 114 to 115).

What the inquiries wrote

• The Kusum Lata Mittal report (completed August 1988) says that on the morning of 1 November a local MP addressed a meeting attended by the SHO and other officers, after which the violence began (para 6.36), that not one arrest was made for a substantive offence (para 6.45), and that “witness after witness” said the SHO was fully in league with the mob (para 6.46). In reply Bhatti said that a lack of fire-fighting vehicles and force caused the damage and that he had saved Sikhs at personal risk; Mittal called this a “very lame excuse” (para 6.46).
• The Mittal report wrote that it was “a shame” that Bhatti and Head Constable Jai Chand were still in service and had not been prosecuted, and recommended that they be dealt with under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution (paras 6.47 to 6.48).
• The Nanavati Commission issued him a Section 8B notice and said his explanation that his area was very large and the force highly inadequate “is not a good explanation”, but, because of the long lapse of time and weak evidence against him, recommended no action (p. 169).

What he is remembered for: Survivors of Sultanpuri name him with the mob; the Mittal report asked for his dismissal; the Nanavati Commission, finding his explanation poor, recommended nothing against him. The two inquiries' words stand side by side in the record.