The Supreme Court on Monday restrained Delhi riots accused Devangana Kalita from inspecting unrelied malkhana documents related to the case..A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi staying a Delhi High Court order that had allowed her to inspect the documents.The Court was hearing a plea filed by the Delhi Police challenging the High Court's order..The Delhi Riots conspiracy case in which the Delhi Police has invoked provisions of the UAPA, involves 18 accused including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita. The Karkardooma Court began hearing arguments on charge in the case on September 5, 2024..The present appeal before the Supreme Court by the Delhi Police arose from a Delhi High Court order in which Justice Neena Bansal Krishna had vacated a stay on the trial court passing final orders on framing of charges.The order by the High Court also dismissed Kalita's plea seeking CAA-NRC protest videos and police WhatsApp chats.However, it allowed her plea to inspect unrelied malkhana documents.The Delhi Police approached the Supreme Court against the same..Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju argued that inspection was not warranted at this stage since Kalita was not entitled to any documents until charges were framed, and that only prosecution documents ought to be looked at before trial.Relying on the Sarla Gupta judgment, Raju submitted that a trial begins only after charges are framed, and an accused has no right to inspection before that adding that if Kalita were eventually discharged, the question of inspection would not arise at all. He contended the plea was aimed at delaying the trial, since arguments on charge were still pending before the trial court.The counsel for Kalita responded that Sarla Gupta itself holds that an accused is entitled to inspect unrelied documents prior to trial.He said that Kalita was seeking the protest videos to show she was peacefully protesting and asked why she should face trial if the videos supported her discharge in the matter..The Bench remarked that the argument, while a good defence, was premature at the stage of arguments on charge and should be raised later before the trial court.The Court also observed that the pace of proceedings undercut the claim of delay. The Bench then proceeded to stay the High Court's order allowing inspection, leaving the trial court free to proceed with framing of charges..[Read Live Coverage]
