The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea filed by student activist Devangana Kalita seeking reconstruction of the case diary in an investigation linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale refused to interfere with a 2025 order of the Delhi High Court that had partly rejected her request while directing preservation of the documents.
Kalita had approached the top court challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision on her plea related to the case diary maintained during the police investigation. Reconstructing a case diary is considered an important legal process aimed at maintaining the integrity of an investigation and ensuring a fair trial.
During the hearing, Kalita’s counsel argued that certain materials relied upon by the prosecution appeared to be “antedated” and possibly forged. The lawyer alleged that statements were added to the case diary with earlier dates to strengthen the case against the accused.
However, the Supreme Court bench questioned the timing of the plea. The judges noted that the trial had already begun three years ago and asked what steps had been taken earlier to address the issue.
Referring to Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which states that an accused person is not entitled to access the case diary maintained by the investigating agency, Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the Delhi High Court’s order did not warrant any interference.
On September 22 last year, the Delhi High Court had partly rejected Kalita’s request for reconstruction of the case diary but accepted her plea for preservation of the documents. Earlier, on December 2, 2024, the High Court had passed an interim order directing the Delhi Police to preserve the case diaries.
Kalita had originally challenged a November 6, 2024 order of the trial court, which refused her request to call for the case diary during the proceedings. The Delhi Police had opposed the request, arguing that allowing such a demand would delay the trial.
The trial court had observed that at that stage it could not examine the truthfulness of the allegations raised by the accused against the investigating agency. It had stated that the issue could be raised at an appropriate stage of the trial.
Kalita’s counsel had claimed that during the stage of framing charges in the case linked to an FIR registered at Jafrabad police station, the police inserted “antedated” statements in the case diary to suggest that the accused played a role in incidents of “dhakka-mukki” (jostling) with police personnel.
The matter arises from cases registered after large-scale communal violence broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020. The clashes occurred between supporters and opponents of the citizenship law and escalated into widespread violence that left at least 53 people dead and around 700 injured.
In June 2021, the Delhi High Court granted bail to student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) related to the riots. While granting bail, the High Court had observed that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, the state had blurred the line between the right to protest and terrorist activity.
The court had also cautioned that such an approach would be a “sad day for democracy” and described the definition of a “terrorist act” under the UAPA as “somewhat vague”, warning against its use in a cavalier manner.
