Hukam Chand Jatav

Hukam Chand Jatav (H. C. Jatav) was the Additional Commissioner of Police in charge of the Delhi Range, which covered the Central, North and East districts, including Subzi Mandi, Karol Bagh and Trilokpuri, in November 1984. He held the post until 15 July 1985 (Mittal report, para 4.1). The Kusum Lata Mittal report gave him a chapter of his own.

Key moments

• 31 October 1984: Mittal says one of his first acts was to move Sikh officers, among them the ACP and SHO of Subzi Mandi, who had arrested 90 people that evening; she wrote that wherever such transfers were made the situation worsened (paras 4.3 to 4.4).
• 1 November 1984: Madan Lal Khurana, then a Delhi BJP leader, told the Nanavati Commission that he phoned Jatav to ask for the Army; Jatav said only some looting was happening and no one was being killed, and, when told that Sikhs were being killed, that “when an important personality dies there is bound to be some reaction” (p. 126).
• 1 and 2 November 1984: Mittal found that he pleaded ignorance of the Trilokpuri killings until 7 p.m. on 2 November, which she called not acceptable (para 4.9).
• 4 November 1984: he sent a message telling all SHOs to announce that people holding looted property should deposit it at police stations or face legal action, which Mittal called “not only improper but also absolutely illegal” (para 4.12).
• 5 November 1984: at Karol Bagh police station he was present when the MP Dharam Dass Shastri and councillors confronted the DCP and SHO over arrests of looters; Mittal says he sided with the political leaders (para 4.12), and the Nanavati Commission records that he told the DCP and SHO it was not a proper way to behave with political leaders (p. 35).
• The Nanavati Commission records that Central District DCP Amod Kanth had “even opposed his superior officer” Jatav when Jatav wanted persons who had looted Sikhs' goods to be released and treated liberally (p. 150).

The Mittal verdict and what followed: Mittal wrote that his role was “questionable, partisan and inexcusable”, that he was “obviously in sympathy with some local leaders and disinclined to take action against the culprits”, and that his wireless logbook “appears to have been manipulated” (para 4.21). She asked the Government to consider dealing with him under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. According to the Nanavati Commission, the Home Ministry's inquiry against him ended with a 30 per cent cut in his pension for five years (p. 7).

What he is remembered for: as the senior officer over Trilokpuri, Subzi Mandi and Karol Bagh to whom Mittal gave a full chapter and a call for dismissal; the penalty on record is a pension cut.