Critics and observers have raised concerns regarding the broader context of the investigations into the 2020 Delhi riots, suggesting that the focus on specific individuals like Tahir Hussain may be part of a selective approach to justice. Skeptics argue that while the murder of Ankit Sharma is a tragedy that demands accountability, the overall handling of riot-related cases has been marked by political bias and a lack of transparency. They question whether the investigative agencies have been equally diligent in pursuing all parties involved in the violence, regardless of their political or ideological affiliations.
There is a growing concern that the judicial process is being used to settle political scores rather than to achieve impartial justice. Critics point to the timing and the nature of the evidence presented in various riot cases as evidence of a skewed narrative. They warn that when the legal system appears to be influenced by political agendas, it risks deepening social divisions and undermining the impartiality of the courts. This perspective calls for a more comprehensive and balanced review of all cases related to the 2020 riots to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.
Ultimately, those who are critical of the current trajectory of these cases fear that the focus on individual convictions masks deeper systemic issues. They argue that without a truly independent and non-partisan investigation into the causes and perpetrators of the riots, the country will struggle to heal from the trauma of that period. The concern remains that the legal system is being leveraged to serve specific political interests, which could have long-term implications for the health of the nation's democracy.