Accused Must Be Given Interpretable Evidence Before Charge Framing; Delhi HC Defers Trial Over Coded 'X' Data - 2025-08-28

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Halts Arguments on Charge, Citing ‘Incomprehensible’ Coded Data from ‘X’

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has intervened in a criminal case, requesting a trial court to defer hearing arguments on charge against petitioner Kapil Mishra. The decision, delivered by Justice Ravinder Dudeja , hinges on a crucial piece of digital evidence—data from the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter)—which was submitted by the investigating agency in an "incomprehensible" and "coded" format.

The Court has scheduled the next hearing for October 13, 2025, to determine whether the prosecution must provide an interpreted version of the data to the accused before the trial can proceed.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Kapil Mishra, approached the High Court seeking a stay on the proceedings in Crl. Case No. 14/2023, which was pending before the ACJM at Rouse Avenue District Courts. The trial court was scheduled to hear arguments on the framing of charges on August 29, 2025, a day after the High Court's order.

The central issue arose after the investigating agency, following the trial court's directions, procured data related to Mr. Mishra's 'X' account. This data was subsequently filed as part of supplementary chargesheets. However, the files containing this data were found to be in a coded language, rendering them unintelligible.

Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for Kapil Mishra, argued that proceeding with the hearing on charge without providing the accused with an understandable version of the evidence would be a violation of natural justice and could vitiate the entire trial.

The key submissions were: - The data obtained from 'X' was downloaded and filed by the investigating agency but remains in a coded, incomprehensible format. - Before arguments on charge can be fairly heard, the prosecution has a duty to provide "interpreted documents" to the petitioner. - Allowing the trial court to proceed would render the High Court petition infructuous, as the very foundation of the charges would be based on evidence that the accused cannot understand or effectively rebut.

The State had already filed its status report in the matter.

Court's Reasoning and Interim Direction

Justice Ravinder Dudeja acknowledged the urgency of the matter, given the imminent hearing at the trial court. The court noted that due to a lack of time, it was not possible to hear and dispose of the main petition on the same day.

Recognizing the potential prejudice to the petitioner, the High Court issued a crucial interim direction. In its order, the court stated:

"Since no time is left, it is not possible to hear and dispose of the petition today, the learned trial court is requested to defer the hearing on charge to a date subsequent to the date fixed by this Court."

Implications of the Order

This order underscores a fundamental principle of criminal procedure: the right of an accused to be supplied with all evidence being relied upon by the prosecution in a comprehensible format. The decision temporarily halts the trial process to ensure that this pre-requisite for a fair hearing is met, especially in an age of increasingly complex digital evidence.

The High Court will now deliberate on the core issue of whether the onus is on the prosecution to decode and interpret technical or coded evidence for the benefit of the accused before charges can be framed. The outcome of the hearing on October 13, 2025 , will be significant for establishing procedural norms for handling digital evidence in criminal trials.