The Supreme Court has intervened to halt the Delhi High Court’s order permitting Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, to inspect certain unrelied malkhana documents. This development emerged as a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi stayed the High Court’s directive, following a plea from the Delhi Police challenging the said order.
The Delhi riots conspiracy case is a high-profile matter involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against 18 individuals, including prominent names such as Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita. The Karkardooma Court began hearing arguments on the framing of charges as of September 5, 2024.
The appeal to the Supreme Court arose from a Delhi High Court decision by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. This decision had initially vacated a stay on the trial court’s ability to pass final orders on charge framing while dismissing Kalita’s request for access to CAA-NRC protest videos and police WhatsApp communications. However, it granted her request to inspect the malkhana documents which the prosecution had not relied upon.
The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, contended that the inspection of these documents was unwarranted at this juncture. Raju emphasized that Kalita was not entitled to any documents until the charges were formally framed. He underscored that only prosecution documents should be reviewed prior to the trial, citing the Sarla Gupta judgment, which states that a trial only commences once charges are framed. Furthermore, Raju argued that if Kalita were discharged, the question of inspection would become moot. He suggested that the plea was a tactic to delay the trial, as arguments on charges were still pending.
In contrast, Kalita’s counsel argued that the Sarla Gupta ruling actually supports the right of an accused to inspect unrelied documents before the trial. The defense sought access to protest videos to demonstrate Kalita’s peaceful protest participation, arguing that such evidence could potentially lead to her discharge.
More Read
The Supreme Court Bench observed that while Kalita’s defense might be strong, it was premature to address it during the charge arguments phase. The Court also noted that the pace of the proceedings did not support claims of intentional delay. Subsequently, the Bench stayed the High Court’s order that allowed Kalita the inspection, thereby enabling the trial court to continue with the framing of charges.
