The Supreme Courtroom as we speak reserved its order on a plea filed by the Delhi Police difficult the Delhi High Court order allowing Devangana Kalita, an accused within the Delhi riots bigger conspiracy case, to examine unrelied paperwork saved within the malkhana.
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi heard the matter.
Further Solicitor Basic SV Raju, showing for the Delhi Police, argued that an accused is entitled to obtain the listing of unrelied paperwork however can not search their inspection earlier than the costs are framed. He submitted that the trial commences solely after the framing of costs and that the suitable to hunt inspection arises at a later stage.
Raju relied on judgments together with State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu to contend that inspection of unrelied paperwork is just not permissible on the stage of framing of cost.
He submitted that after the costs are framed, an accused can search manufacturing of paperwork by invoking Part 91 of the CrPC, and on the stage of coming into defence can search manufacturing of paperwork beneath Part 233 CrPC.
Raju submitted that the aim of furnishing the listing of unrelied paperwork is to make the accused conscious of the fabric collected by the investigating officer, in order that the accused can search manufacturing of a selected doc on the applicable stage. He argued that permitting inspection earlier than costs are framed would solely delay the trial.
“Inspection is just for the aim of delaying the trial that they’re asking this,” he mentioned submitted.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, showing for Kalita, nevertheless, mentioned the Delhi Police had not even furnished the listing of unrelied paperwork to her regardless of the chargesheet having been filed in 2020.
Raju agreed that the listing could be furnished. “He is proper. Unrelied listing is just not given. We’ll give him the unrelied listing,” he mentioned.
Sibal submitted that the listing would allow the defence to determine important paperwork and search inspection of particular materials, if required.
Counting on the judgment concerning former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, Sibal mentioned that inspection of unrelied paperwork had been permitted even earlier than framing of costs. He identified that Sisodia’s case concerned round 69,000 pages and the court docket had held that an accused couldn’t be denied affordable time to examine the fabric to avail the suitable to a good trial.
Sibal additionally referred to orders of Delhi trial courts allowing inspection of unrelied paperwork saved within the malkhana in instances investigated by the Enforcement Directorate and the Nationwide Investigation Company.
“In comparable vein, the facility and process of courts allowing inspection of report Malkhana previous to framing of cost is rooted in rulings and follow of trial courts,” he submitted.
Justice Aravind Kumar noticed that the prosecution was taking a unique place regardless of such inspection being permitted in different instances. “Now they declare knowledge has dawned on them,” the decide remarked.
Sibal additionally sought a video seized by the police, contending that it may present that Kalita had participated in peaceable protests. He highlighted that the identical video had been thought of by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom whereas granting her bail. Sibal mentioned that the Excessive Courtroom had examined the case diary and materials in a sealed cowl and located that Kalita’s presence was seen in peaceable agitation, with no materials exhibiting that she had instigated ladies of a selected neighborhood or made a hate speech.
He argued that the video was not defence materials sought to be produced by Kalita, however materials seized by the investigating company, recorded in a seizure memo and accompanied by a Part 65B certificates beneath the Indian Proof Act.
Referring to the seizure memo, Sibal mentioned it recorded the seizure of video clips of the riots at a college, recorded by cameraman Prem Singh. He additionally referred to Singh’s assertion that he had been engaged for videography and requested by the police to report the occasions.
Sibal argued that the prosecution couldn’t seize the fabric, embrace it within the seizure memo after which designate it as unrelied upon when it may help the accused. He mentioned Kalita ought to be allowed to examine the video earlier than framing of costs if it may exculpate her.
He clarified that he was not invoking Part 91 CrPC, however solely looking for inspection of fabric already seized by the police.
Sibal additional submitted that even on the stage of framing costs, the court docket is just not barred from summoning materials withheld by the investigating company whether it is of “sterling high quality” and has a vital bearing on the query of framing costs.
He additionally referred to a Delhi court docket order in an NIA case allowing inspection of unrelied paperwork by counting on the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. He mentioned the Delhi Police had not objected to such inspection in a number of different instances, together with NIA instances, however was opposing it in Kalita’s case.
Raju maintained that the judgments relied upon by Sibal both arose in several factual circumstances or involved later levels of proceedings. He submitted that the judgments needed to be understood within the context of the stage at which the accused sought the paperwork.
After listening to the arguments, the Courtroom reserved order and permitted either side to file quick notes of submissions not exceeding two pages.
Background
The case arises from the Delhi Excessive Courtroom’s June 6 order rejecting Kalita’s plea looking for movies of the CAA-NRC protests and WhatsApp chats relied upon by the Delhi Police, citing the delicate data concerned. On the similar time, it permitted her to examine the unrelied paperwork saved in police custody.
The Delhi Police challenged that course earlier than the Supreme Courtroom. On July 20, the Courtroom stayed the Excessive Courtroom’s order.
Kalita was granted bail by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom in June 2021 together with co-accused Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal. The Supreme Courtroom dismissed the Delhi Police’s problem to the bail order in Might 2023.
In August 2023, the trial court docket had refused Kalita’s plea looking for the complete CCTV footage of North-East Delhi and WhatsApp chats of police officers within the UAPA case.
Case Particulars: State NCT of Delhi v. Devangana Kalita, SLP(Crl) No. 12447/2026, Diary No. 38990/2026
