Delhi HC defers plea against police videoconferencing by 8 weeks

Delhi High Court has postponed a hearing on a petition against a notification allowing police to testify via video conferencing for eight weeks.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday deferred by eight weeks the hearing of a petition challenging the Lieutenant Governor’s August 13 notification that allows police officers to testify before courts via video conferencing from designated police stations.

(Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The bench, comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, noted the recent assurance by the Delhi Police to keep the notification in abeyance.

“There’s an assurance from the Delhi police….. In view of the fact that certain developments have taken place, list this matter after 8 weeks,” the court said while hearing a petition filed by Siddharth, a practising advocate.

In a statement issued on August 28, Delhi Police Commissioner Satish Golchha stated that the implementation would be carried out after consulting all stakeholders. The notification, which designated all 226 police stations in Delhi as video-conferencing centres, aimed to“improve efficiency and save time” by reducing the need for police personnel to be physically present in the court.

The move was based on the draft model rules of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

However, the notification had sparked widespread protest from the legal fraternity. Lawyers across all district courts in Delhi abstained from work for over a week, arguing that the move would compromise the fairness of judicial proceedings and create opportunities for evidence manipulation.

The strike was called off last Thursday, following the Delhi police’s announcement and a meeting between members of the bar associations and Union Home Ministry officials earlier in the day. It was conveyed that Union Home Minister Amit Shah would personally meet lawyers to discuss their concerns and attempt a resolution.

In his petition, Siddharth had contended that the arrangement that had been put forth by way of the August 13 notification undermines the solemnity of judicial proceedings, strikes at the root of the fundamental right to fair trial, facilitates tutoring or selective reference to departmental records and irreversibly tilts adversarial balance in prosecution’s favour.