At that time, in 1984, I was slowly treading my steps ahead as a budding lawyer. I came to Delhi three years back and was practicing as a lawyer for the past three years. After my marriage in 1983, my wife shifted from Punjab—where she was teaching at Ludhiana University—to take up a job in Delhi. So during the time of the incident both of us were in Delhi. On November 2, 1984, our residence in Delhi was attacked and our relatives back home were asking us to return back to Punjab. We went to Punjab and decided that we would relocate back to our hometown. Then we came back to Delhi on November 22, 1984, to take our belongings, my case files and also for my wife to submit her resignation. The next day, when I went to the court, I got to know that there is a need for lawyers in the relief camps set up in different parts of Delhi. Upon hearing this, I immediately decided to visit the relief camps and went to a relief camp set up at the Farsh Bazar area in Delhi. This camp housed the victims of the Trilokpuri area. 

A civil society initiative was set up by a group of journalists, social workers and professors, named ‘Nagarik Ekta Manch’ who were managing this camp at Farsh Bazar [Near Shahadra, Delhi]. When I went to the relief camp at Farsh Bazar, I could see that the majority were women and children. I got to know that most of the male members of the families were killed in the riots. Upon reaching the camp and speaking to the members of the Nagarik Ekta Manch, I was informed that there is a need for lawyers to legally assist the individuals in the camp.

That day upon returning home I spoke to my wife. I said to her “these people at the camps have lost everything they had. Their families, belongings and even their homes. At least we are still alive right and in a better position than them. Then why should we escape? If we leave these people in this situation, we would never be able to forgive ourselves. We cannot leave these people and simply escape. These people at the camp need legal help.”

Following this conversation, we decided to postpone our relocation to Punjab for six months. And from the last week of November, 1984, I started visiting the relief camps across Delhi.

In the first week of December, I filed my first case to the Delhi High Court. The case revolved around an old man from Rajasthan, whose son-in-law and his family was killed by the mob during the riots. The son-in-law named Sahed Singh, was a hardworking person, who made his way from the peripheries of Rajasthan to running a factory at Anand Parbat in Karol Bagh, Delhi.  All the male members of the son-in-law’s family were killed. Saheb Singh, his wife, and their 16-year-old boy, along with Saheb Singh’s brother, were killed by the mob. Only four girl children were alive, of which the eldest was just thirteen. These children initially took refuge at the relief camp, and then the members of the Nagarik Ekta Manch sent them to the children's home.

When their grandfather came from Rajasthan to take the children, the children’s home wanted him to produce an official court certificate before handing them over. It was in this search for a court certificate that the old man came to the high court, where the lawyers gave him my address. I met the old man, got to know about the situation, and filed the first case in the court for granting the custody of the children to their grandfather. That was the first case that I filed during that tumultuous period, and slowly the other cases came along. 

I was involved as a primary advocate in all the main cases during that time. Be it the case against Sajjan Kumar, or the case against HKL Bhagat and Jagdish Tytler.
If we  take the case of Sajjan Kumar in particular, there is a lot to say in that. On November 7, 2026, the opposition leaders visited the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and informed him that Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob which killed the Sikhs. But Rajiv Gandhi responded to it, claiming that there was no congress leader involved in leading the mobs.

On November 17, 2026, a report named “Who are the Guilty?” was published by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties [PUCL] and People’s Union for Democratic rights [PUDR]. The report detailed the collected accounts of the victims across different relief camps in Delhi. The accounts stated “Sajjan Kumar’s” involvement in actively leading the mobs. 

Then, on November 19, 2026, Rajiv Gandhi addressed the public for the first time after the riots, and not only declared Sajjan Singh as innocent, but also justified what took place. I remember Rajiv Gandhi publicly saying “Jab bhi koyi bada ped gidta hai, toh dhadti hilti hai” (When a big tree falls, the ground underneath is bound to shake heavily).

After that, the Mishra Commission was set up to oversee Sajjan Kumar’s case, and a lot of affidavits were issued against Sajjan Kumar. We have also mentioned in our case, that there were 17 affidavits issued against Sajjan Kumar.

Then in 1987, there was the Jain-Banerjee Committee [the committee was set up to look into the registration of cases following a recommendation of the Mishra Commission] which asked the court to register a case against Sajjan Kumar. But neither the case nor any appeal could be registered. Infact, the high court issued a stay on the recommendations of the Jain Committee. And notably, the very judge who granted that stay later became Chief Justice and moved on. The case then went to another judge, Justice S.P. Bhat. 

I remember this clearly—it was 6th May 1988. Justice Bhat said, in effect: "This widow's statement says she saw Sajjan Kumar leading the mob that killed her husband—why do you need the committee's recommendation? This constitutes a cognizable offense. You have to register the case." The government's lawyer somehow got an adjournment — asked for time, saying he needed to seek instructions from the government. The case, listed for 6th May, was adjourned to 20th May. By 20th May, a new Chief Justice had been brought in. On the morning of 20th May, this new judge came in — and on 19th May had already told the Registrar to list the case before him specifically. Where Justice Bhat had said "register the case," this new judge instead rejected it. 

This went on until the V.P. Singh's government came to power. Only then was the case registered and handed to the CBI. This was September 1990. The CBI went to Sajjan Kumar's house to arrest him and conduct a search. A mob gathered. They took the CBI team hostage and set fire to CBI jeeps. The CBI's own officers present there — forget doing their job — feared for their lives, thinking they'd be killed. That's the extent of Sajjan Kumar's dominance at the time.

I remember Rajiv Gandhi publicly saying “Jab bhi koyi bada ped gidta hai, toh dhadti hilti hai” ([When a big tree falls, the ground underneath is bound to shake heavily)].

They called the police and the Delhi Police responded by saying that, "The mob is too large, we can't do anything." This was under an opposition government—V.P. Singh's government—and this is what was happening; that's how powerful he [Sajjan Kumar] was. In the judgment that eventually convicted him, the judge recorded—quoting my argument—that "Mr. Phoolka has drawn our attention to this incident," noting that given how powerful the man was, who would have dared come forward to testify against him?

When the Nanavati Commission [published its report in 2005, and found the links of Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler in the attacks of 1984] recommended that a case be pursued against Sajjan Kumar and Tytler, citing substantial evidence, the Congress government of the time told Parliament that they were not guilty—that no prima facie case could be made against them—and gave them a clean chit, saying there was no need to pursue prosecution. Parliament was disrupted for three days over this. Even the opposition protested, and even the CPM and CPI—who were supporting the UPA government at the time—objected, asking what this meant.  

Eventually, when the Commission's recommendation forced the question of registration, Jagdish Tytler, who was a minister at the time, resigned. Sajjan Kumar, who was chairman or member of several committees then, also resigned. Only after that was a case registered against them—in 2005—and that's the case in which he was convicted in 2018.

Separately, there was another case registered by the SIT—set up by the Modi government in 2015—concerning the murder of two Sikhs. He was convicted in that case in 2025, receiving two life sentences. So Sajjan Kumar was serving three life sentences in total at the time of his death. On the very day he died, he had an application for parole pending before the Supreme Court, and we were waiting on that case when news of his death came in.

All kinds. Let me put it this way—it wasn't only the Congress protecting him [Sajjan Kumar]; the whole system was complicit to this. This massacre, this genocide, could not have happened without the full support of the government. All the government agencies, intelligence agencies, were behind it, behind the killing of Sikhs, and Congress leaders and workers were at the forefront. So he [Sajjan Kumar] received continuous protection, continuous cover. 

People warned me about this from the start, but I'm thankful to my family, my wife, who stood by me. As I mentioned, on 2nd November our house was attacked. That day, our landlady stood in the stairway and blocked the mob from attacking us. Meanwhile, her daughter-in-law took us inside, and put us atop the space where the store quilts or blankets. They locked the door behind us and stacked the quilts. So the mob never found us. Otherwise, we wouldn't have survived that day. God saved us. This family was not a Sikh family, they were Hindus.

We told ourselves—since we were saved that time, we'd be protected going forward too. That's how a lawyer's life in this line of work goes—what's meant to happen will happen.

That's what I always said, everywhere. Our whole group—Justice Tarkunde, Soli Sorabjee, Justice Sikri [all of them were pioneers to lead and form the Citizen’s Justice Committee to cater to the issues of the victims of anti-sikh riots in 1984]—we all believed we wanted to uphold the rule of law in this country. No one should come to power and declare, "I am the law, I am everything." That must never happen. If you want to preserve democracy, you have to govern by rule of law. Whoever holds power should have a fear of the law. If that fear disappears, it becomes a dictatorship — and then democracy is finished.

That's why upholding the country's law was so important. And look — even though it took many years, this stands as a significant lesson. In 2007, I wrote a book on this issue, ‘When a Tree Shook Delhi.’ At the discussion around that book, Brinda Karat, Salman Khurshid, and Ravishankar Prasad were present, with Yogendra Yadav as moderator. Salman Khurshid said that day: "This book is a lesson to people in power today — that if you commit a crime, one day the law will catch up with you." That message needed to reach people.

Whoever holds power today — if you commit an illegal act, a crime — you might get away with it today, but a day will come in your life when you'll have to answer for it. Sajjan Kumar was young at the time — counted among the youngest MPs of his era. He committed the crime in his youth and ended up in jail in his old age, and given how he died in jail, every politician, everyone in power, should keep this in mind.

Look, the most important thing is this: wherever there are serious human rights violations — what we call crimes against humanity or genocide — it's one thing to name them, but the actual cases where these have happened should never be forgotten. They should be pursued. Second, the downtrodden sections of our society, who can't fight for themselves—standing up for them is, I believe, our duty. I say this to lawyers like myself, and I say it to the media too, standing up for them is everyone's responsibility.

Let me tell you something. As far as the question of law is concerned, as far as human dignity is concerned, as far as justice for the downtrodden is concerned, we have to look at this separately from politics. The problem only arises when we attach it to politics.

It's been 42 years now that I've been fighting these cases, and I always notice that when elections come around, people start talking about these issues, politicians start talking about them. But for us and our team, these things never mattered. It does not matter whose favor it works in. If you actually want to prevent these kinds of crimes, and work for protecting human dignity, you have to look at it separately from elections. You cannot worry about "what impact will this have, and who benefits from this"

If, say, tomorrow, a child [a girl] is abducted, sold in one place, then another, then a third. We don't focus there on which government did what. Instead, everyone's focus should be on how to rescue that child. 

Now, you could say "this government did this" or "that government did that.” But this is everyone's duty, everyone's responsibility. Just as with the 1984 case — you might say that's 42 years old, but I'm talking about it today. Even today,  issues of this kind should be looked at separately from politics. The question of who benefits or loses politically from raising these issues is immaterial — that kind of talk is beside the point. 

I'll tell you another thing. From day one, we've established, and it's a fact, that in Delhi, Sikhs were not killed by Hindus. They were killed by the supporters of one particular political party. By and large, Hindus who weren't supporters of that party were the ones trying to save the attacked people. My own landlord's family was Hindu, and they were protecting us. There's a lawyer who's worked with us for 27 years — Kamna Vohra — who has appeared for the victims in the Sajjan Kumar and Tytler's cases. She saved her own neighbors during the riots. Unfortunately, she's unwell now — she's in a coma. That's a great setback for our case as well.

On the other hand, some killed two Hindus because they stood in front of Sikh homes to protect them. They burned down Ram Vilas Paswan's own house because he sheltered a Sikh family. There are many such instances, and we've demonstrated in court that Congress supporters — whether Hindu, Muslim, or Christian — were the ones carrying out the killings.

So this is something we established from the outset — despite the government's efforts at the time to claim that Hindus, out of anger, killed Sikhs — we proved on record that this was the work of one political party.

NewsGram thanks H.S. Phoolka for his time and insight.

(The Interview is edited for length and clarity purpose)

(Edited by Ritik Singh)