Overview The Supreme Court on 9 March 2026 declined to entertain a petition filed by Devangana Kalita , a Pinjra Tod activist, against the Delhi High Court’s order on the reconstruction of police case diaries in a 2020 Delhi riots case. Key Developments Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale dismissed the plea, citing Section 172(3) of the CrPC . The Delhi High Court, through Justice Ravinder Dudeja , had earlier (22 Sept 2025) held that a case diary is not evidence but its preservation is essential for a fair trial. High Court ordered preservation of volumes 9989 and 9990 of the diary but refused reconstruction, noting possible overlap with other FIRs and lack of statutory right for the accused. Kalita’s allegations of forged, ante‑dated statements under Section 161 CrPC were left for examination during the trial. Important Facts The dispute stems from a complaint lodged by DSP Devendra Singh during the anti‑CAA/NRC protests, alleging that a crowd of 200‑400 persons blocked the main road near Jafrabad metro station, causing obstruction. The FIR (No. 48/2020) led to a chargesheet against 26 individuals, including Kalita, under multiple sections of the IPC such as 147 (rioting), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant), 186 (obstructing public servant), among others. The trial commenced in December 2020. In 2024, Kalita invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to seek reconstruction and preservation of the diary booklets. UPSC Relevance Understanding the procedural safeguards around case diaries is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) as it illustrates the balance between investigative confidentiality and the accused’s right to a fair trial. The judgment also highlights the limited scope of an accused’s right to access police records, referencing the landmark Mukund Lal case. Students should note how statutory provisions (Sections 172, 161, 528 CrPC) interact with constitutional guarantees of due process, a recurring theme in legal‑policy questions. Way Forward Future litigants may need to demonstrate concrete prejudice from the absence of diary entries rather than rely on a general right to reconstruction. Law‑makers could consider amending the CrPC to clarify the scope of an accused’s access to investigative records, balancing transparency with investigative secrecy. Judicial pronouncements will continue to shape the procedural landscape, making it essential for aspirants to track evolving case law on criminal procedure.