Accused holds a right to inspect un-relied documents in Malkhana to ensure a fair trial.

The Petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 59/2020 (North-East Delhi riots case), moved an application seeking inspection of the "Malkhana" to examine un-relied documents and electronic evidence (CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and videos) seized by the Investigating Agency but not filed with the Chargesheet

The Special Judge dismissed the application on December 7, 2024, holding that since an order under Section 207 Cr.P.C. regarding the supply of relied-upon documents had already been passed, the Petitioner could not seek further inspection of material in the Malkhana

The Petitioner challenged this order via a Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing that the right to inspection is a facet of a fair trial

1. Whether an interlocutory order of a Special Court under the NIA Act/UAPA is amenable to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court despite the bar under Section 21(3) of the NIA Act

2. Whether an accused person is entitled to inspect un-relied documents kept in the Malkhana at the stage of arguments on Charge to ensure a fair trial

Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial as an inalienable attribute of justice

Section 21 of the NIA Act, noting that while it bars appeals against interlocutory orders, it does not oust the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S. 528 BNSS) or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227

Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), which mandates "fair disclosure" by the prosecution

In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials, which requires the prosecution to provide a list of un-relied materials to the accused

CBI v. M/s INX Media Pvt. Ltd. and Manish Sisodia v. ED, establishing that the right to a fair trial includes the right to inspect un-relied documents

The Court first rejected the Respondent's preliminary objection regarding maintainability, clarifying that Section 21(3) of the NIA Act cannot extinguish the High Court's constitutional and inherent powers to prevent a miscarriage of justice

On the merits, the Court observed that criminal jurisprudence has evolved from a strict interpretation of Section 207 Cr.P.C. to a more expansive "fairness" doctrine. While an accused cannot generally file new evidence at the charge stage (Debendra Nath Padhi), they are entitled to documents of "sterling quality" withheld by the investigator if such documents promote truth

The Court reasoned that the perception of "prejudice" lies with the accused, and if they believe un-relied material (like CCTV footage) may establish innocence, denying inspection violates Article 21

The Court explicitly rejected the State’s argument that terror-related cases (UAPA/NIA) should have lower standards of disclosure than CBI/economic cases, holding that the rights of an accused to a fair trial are universal and cannot be compartmentalized by the nature of the offense

The Court set aside the impugned order dated December 7, 2024, and directed the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to inspect the un-relied documents in the Malkhana, while cautioning the Petitioner not to use this as a tactic to delay the trial