Supreme Court Dismisses Devangana Kalita's Plea For Reconstruction Of Case Diaries In 2020 Delhi Riots Case

The Supreme Court today (March 9) declined to entertain Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalita's plea challenging the Delhi High Court's refusal to allow reconstruction of the case diaries in relation to a 2020 Delhi riots case.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale heard the matter. Kalita's counsel argued that the material supplied by the prosecution was "demonstrably forged", alleging that it was ante-dated. Unconvinced, Justice Kumar referred to Section 172(3) of CrPC (which restricts an accused's right to access case diary) and questioned, "Trial commenced 3 years back, what were you doing for 3 years?"

By an order dated September 22, 2025, Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court said that the case diary is not evidence. But since its absence may affect the fairness of the trial, the Court allowed preservation of the same.

The case pertains to a complaint filed by a Delhi Superintendent of Police, Devendra Singh, during the anti-CAA and NRC protests that a crowd of about 200-400 people gathered below the Jafrabad metro station and had blocked the main road. It was alleged that the crowd caused obstruction to the commuters and tension in the area.

Kalita had approached the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking to set aside the Trial Court's order refusing reconstruction and preservation of Booklets 9989 and 9990 made in connection with the First Information Report 48/2020.

Subsequently, chargesheet was filed on completion of the trial against 26 persons, including Kalita, under Sections 147/ 353/ 186/ 188/ 341/ 283/ 109/153A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial then began in December 2020.

In 2024, Kalita raised various issues regarding the alleged tampering and ante-dating of the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, which were a part of the case diary and the supplementary chargesheet on the premise that there was a discrepancy in the Booklet Nos. and the Page Nos. of the respective sheets on which the statements were recorded.

The Trial Court declined the relief sought with reason that the issue was a procedural aspect.

High Court's Observations

The High Court noted that Section 172 CrPC mandates the maintenance of police case diaries on a day-to-day basis, with proper pagination and chronological entries. The provision also empowers criminal courts to call for and examine such diaries to aid the inquiry or trial.

Justice Dudeja emphasised that the trial court possesses unfettered power to summon and examine police diaries and that such power functions as an important safeguard to ensure fairness in the criminal process.

At the same time, the Court reiterated that an accused does not have an independent right to demand access to or inspection of the police diary, except in limited circumstances provided under Section 172(3) CrPC. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Mukund Lal v. Union of India, the Court observed that the confidentiality of case diaries is intended to protect investigative processes and informants.

The High Court noted that it had earlier passed an interim order on December 2, 2024 directing preservation of the relevant case diary volumes.

Holding that absence of the case diary could affect the fairness of trial, the Court made the interim direction absolute, directing that Volume Nos. 9989 and 9990 be preserved.

However, it declined the petitioner's request for reconstruction of the booklets, reasoning that:

• The other pages in those booklets might relate to different FIRs investigated by the police at the same time.
• Reconstruction of such records would fall outside the scope of Sections 172 and 91 CrPC.
• The accused cannot claim a right to copies or reconstruction of case diary records.

While dismissing the reconstruction plea, the Court clarified that the petitioner would be free to demonstrate the alleged antedating of witness statements before the trial court during trial.

Case Details: DEVANGANA KALITA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) | Diary No.74241/2025