The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Delhi High Court order permitting activist Devangana Kalita, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, to inspect electronic evidence collected by the Delhi Police but not relied upon by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charges.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Alok Aradhe passed the interim order while issuing notice on the Delhi Police’s challenge to the High Court judgment rendered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.
The High Court had, on June 5, dismissed Kalita’s plea seeking copies of videos of the anti-CAA/NRC protests and WhatsApp chats relied upon by the prosecution, citing the sensitive nature of the material. However, it permitted her to inspect the unrelied electronic material retained by the investigating agency, holding that inspection of such material was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to argue on the charge.
Before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that settled law did not entitle an accused to inspect documents or electronic records not relied upon by the prosecution before charges were framed. Relying on the decisions in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, and Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1063, he submitted that the High Court’s direction was contrary to binding precedent and would only delay the trial.
Appearing for Kalita, counsel contended that the defence sought access to videos showing that she had participated peacefully in the anti-CAA protests. It was argued that if the footage demonstrated she was peacefully protesting rather than engaging in violence, it could support her plea for discharge and ought not to be withheld merely because the prosecution chose not to rely upon it.
The Bench, however, indicated that such a contention would constitute a defence to be examined during trial rather than at the stage of framing of charges. The Court also expressed concern that permitting inspection of all unrelied electronic evidence at this stage could significantly delay the proceedings.
The Supreme Court accordingly stayed the operation of the High Court’s direction permitting inspection of unrelied electronic evidence.