SC Stays Delhi HC Order on Electronic Evidence Inspection in Delhi Riots Larger Conspiracy Case

On July 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of India stayed a Delhi High Court order that had permitted accused Devangana Kalita to inspect electronic evidence collected by the Delhi Police but not relied upon by the prosecution in the larger conspiracy case linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the interim stay while hearing a challenge filed by the Delhi Police against the High Court's June 6 ruling. The decision highlights the continuing tension between the right of the accused to access material relevant to their defence and the prosecution's prerogative to withhold sensitive evidence at the pre-trial stage.

Background of the Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

The larger conspiracy case stems from allegations that the northeast Delhi riots of February 2020 were the result of a pre-planned conspiracy rather than spontaneous communal violence. The Delhi Police chargesheet, running into thousands of pages along with voluminous electronic evidence, names 18 accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Among the accused are Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Natasha Narwal, and Devangana Kalita. The case has been one of the most closely watched criminal proceedings in India, with significant implications for how courts apply the stringent bail provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The case gained renewed attention in January 2026 when the Supreme Court, while refusing bail to certain accused, distinguished between those alleged to be the architects of the conspiracy and those who played peripheral roles. The volume of electronic evidence, including WhatsApp chats, call records, videos, and financial transaction data, has been a central feature of the prosecution's case. The criminal procedure framework governing such cases has been significantly altered by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023.

What the Delhi High Court Had Ordered

On June 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court passed a carefully calibrated order. It rejected Kalita's plea seeking copies of videos from Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) protests as well as WhatsApp chats relied upon by the police, citing the sensitive nature of the material. However, the High Court permitted Kalita to inspect electronic records and documents that the prosecution had chosen not to rely upon in the chargesheet.

The distinction between copies and inspection was significant. Inspection allowed the accused to view the material without receiving copies that could potentially be disseminated. The High Court's reasoning drew on the principle that an accused is entitled to know what material exists in the prosecution's possession, even if the prosecution chooses not to rely on it. Understanding how to access investigation documents, including the right to obtain certified copies of FIRs under BNSS 2023, is a fundamental aspect of criminal defence.

Supreme Court's Reasoning and the Sarla Gupta Precedent

The Supreme Court, while granting the stay, drew upon principles established in the Sarla Gupta judgment. In that case, the Court held that while an accused is not entitled to copies of documents not relied upon by the prosecution at the charge-framing stage, the accused must be furnished with a list of such documents when process is issued. This enables the defence to be aware of all materials in the prosecution's custody and to seek their production at the appropriate stage of trial.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that allowing an accused to inspect unrelied documents before charges are framed would set a concerning precedent, particularly in cases involving national security. The bench indicated that arguments concerning electronic evidence and its disclosure can be raised during the trial itself, and that the charge-framing stage is not the appropriate forum for such extensive inspection rights. This approach aligns with the Court's broader emphasis on procedural discipline, as reflected in its recent direction mandating same-day communication of bail orders to jail authorities.

Implications for Fair Trial Rights Under the UAPA

The ruling carries significant implications for the balance between fair trial rights and the state's interest in prosecuting offences under the UAPA. Section 43D(5) already imposes a stringent bar on bail, requiring courts to refuse bail where there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true. Combined with restrictions on accessing unrelied evidence at the pre-trial stage, this creates a challenging landscape for the defence.

Critics argue that limiting the accused's access to evidence before trial undermines the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Proponents contend that premature disclosure of sensitive electronic evidence in terrorism-related cases could compromise national security. The difficulty of securing bail in cases involving special statutes remains well documented; courts consistently apply restrictive bail provisions in legislation such as the NDPS Act.

Electronic Evidence Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Electronic evidence has become central to modern criminal prosecutions in India. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act 1872, electronic records are admissible as evidence subject to specific conditions regarding authentication and integrity. The BSA prescribes certificate requirements for electronic evidence to ensure reliability before admission. In cases involving voluminous digital material, such as the Delhi riots matter where the prosecution relies on WhatsApp chats, videos, and financial transaction records, the question of what the defence may access and when has become increasingly important. The Supreme Court's intervention suggests that courts will continue to take a cautious approach, preferring to address evidence access disputes during trial rather than at preliminary stages.

Related Reading

Understanding the key changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023

How courts assess admissibility of witness testimony against absconded accused

When High Courts can and cannot reweigh evidence under certiorari jurisdiction

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court's June 6 order that permitted accused Devangana Kalita to inspect unrelied electronic evidence in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe relied on the Sarla Gupta precedent, which holds that defence arguments regarding unrelied documents should be raised during trial, not at the charge-framing stage.

The accused must be provided with a list of unrelied documents when process is issued, but copies and inspection remain matters for the trial stage.

The ruling has important implications for UAPA prosecutions, where Section 43D(5) already imposes strict bail conditions and limits on pre-trial evidence disclosure.

Electronic evidence under the BSA 2023 must meet specific authentication requirements, and courts are taking a cautious approach to premature disclosure in sensitive cases.