In a recent development concerning the 2020 Delhi riots case, the Delhi Police conveyed to a Delhi Court that the accused do not possess any legal right to request the overall status or timeline of the investigation prior to the commencement of arguments on charges. This stance was presented by Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad before Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of the Karkardooma Courts.
The matter arose when accused individuals, including Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Meeran Haider, and Athar Khan, filed applications seeking clarity on the overall status and anticipated completion of the investigation. Co-accused individuals such as Khalid Saifi, Faizan Khan, Ishrat Jahan, Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Saleem Malik, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahamd, and Gulfisha Fatima, expressed their support for these applications.
Prasad, in his submission, stated,
“All the applications do not contain any provision in law. Why is it important to see if there is a provision of law or not? Because when the court decides to entertain an application, maintainability goes to the root of the matter. Without any provision and law being there, an application cannot be entertained at all.”
He further emphasized that these applications are merely presumptive and are an attempt to sidetrack the trial.
Addressing the application by Kalita and Narwal, which sought clarity on the investigation’s completion, Prasad remarked that their request assumes that the case diaries aren’t already with the court. He highlighted that these diaries have been reviewed by the court at various investigation stages, especially when supplementary chargesheets were presented.
Prasad further argued,
“The prayer is not limited to these two accused. What is being sought is the overall progress of the investigation. What is the provision in law to ask that? Which provision of law gives the right to any accused to ask anything like that?…Something which law doesn’t give them a right, they want to enter through a backdoor. Something which is not permissible, which can’t be entertained by this court, the application is filed.”
The defense’s perspective was that they need to be aware of whether the investigation against them is finalized before they present their defense during the charge arguments. They expressed concerns that the prosecution might introduce supplementary chargesheets to address any gaps in the investigation that the accused might highlight.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Friday, where the prosecution’s arguments will be concluded. The case, registered under various offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is being investigated by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell.
