The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought response from the Delhi Police on two petitions filed by Pinjra Tod activist Devangana Kalita seeking video recording of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), as well as WhatsApp chats of police groups.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Amit Bansal directed the Police to file their reply and listed the matter for further hearing on January 17, 2024.
The two petitions filed by Kalita challenged the trial court orders, which rejected her prayer for the video footage as well as plea for transcript of WhatsApp chats.
One of the cases was related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the Delhi riots, filed under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The other case pertained to the murder of a person protesting near the Jafrabad flyover.
Appearing for Kalita, Advocate Adit S. Pujari submitted that the videos and WhatsApp chats were a part of the Delhi Police’s charge sheets and have been relied upon by the prosecution.
The counsel contended that even after the passing of three years and nine months, the videos and chats in full have not been provided to the petitioner.
Advocate Pujari alleged that selective photographs were taken from the video. He sought directions to provide Kalita with the whole video prior to arguments on charge.
The Counsel said the video would help them to demonstrate that between February 22, 2020 to February 26, 2020, they were protesting peacefully. There was stone pelting from the other side, but they (respondents) did not want to produce the videos, he added.
Representing the Delhi Police, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey challenged the maintainability of the petitions on the grounds of delay in their filing.
The SPP submitted that the Delhi Police were still investigating the case and that certain accused persons were still absconding. He said providing the WhatsApp chats of police groups would lead to compromising the way intelligence was gathered.
The single-judge Bench observed that it would not pass any order regarding the stay of trial without hearing both sides in detail and listed the matter for further hearing in January.