HC expresses concern over LG allowing deposition of police personnel virtually

The LG’s notification designated all 226 police stations in the Capital as video-conferencing centres for officers to give evidence in court.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over a notification issued by lieutenant governor VK Saxena allowing Delhi Police personnel to depose virtually from police stations, observing that such a practice “prima facie” compromised an accused’s right to fair trial.

The matter will be heard next on December 10.

A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyay and justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the remarks while hearing a plea by advocate Raj Gaurav, who challenged the August 13 notification. Gaurav argued that allowing officers to testify from police-controlled premises undermined the neutrality of criminal trials, particularly during examination and cross-examination.

The LG’s notification designated all 226 police stations in the Capital as video-conferencing centres for officers to give evidence in court. The move, based on the draft model rules of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), was presented as a measure to “improve efficiency and save time” by freeing up police manpower and resources.

But the high court questioned why police stations, which are part of the prosecuting apparatus, were chosen as the “designated sites”. It emphasised that the trial proceedings must be conducted in an environment which is impartial and permits the accused an opportunity to face a fair trial. The state, being an investigating agency, the bench said, must maintain neutrality in a trial.

“Whether this right of fair trial of an accused is not being compromised by permitting the prosecution witnesses to make their depositions from their own places? We can understand there is some difficulty in producing formal witnesses, investigating officers etc. Correct. You have the right to identify designated places… We’re not challenging your power to designate a place, but why police stations?” the bench asked additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma representing the Centre and Delhi Police.

“State is the investigating agency and therefore [must have] some neutrality at the time of trial… You have to create an environment where any person accused of a criminal charge gets an opportunity to face a fair trial. This perhaps prima facie compromises the concept of fair trial,” the bench observed.

Even though the court urged the Centre, Delhi Police, and the LG to “do some churning” over the issue, it declined to pass any directions for withdrawal of the notification, noting that it had not yet been acted upon by authorities. “A lot of churning is needed at your end, not because they are agitating. Otherwise, you have to ensure a fair trial … You have clear three months’ time to think and convey the concerns” the bench told Sharma.

The matter has now been tagged with a similar petition filed by advocate Siddharth and will be heard next on December 10.

On September 3, the high court deferred for eight weeks the hearing of a petition challenging the LG’s notification in view of the Delhi Police’s August 28 assurance to keep the notification in abeyance.

The August 13 notification had sparked a sharp backlash from the legal fraternity, with lawyers across the district courts abstaining from work for over a week. The strike was called off on August 28, after Delhi Police commissioner Satish Golchha, in a statement, assured that the notification would not be enforced without consultation with stakeholders.

On September 4, the Delhi Police issued a follow-up notification, limiting virtual testimony to “formal witnesses” such as officers handling documents, and excluding material witnesses. But this too drew resistance from lawyers, who argued that the sanctity of trial proceedings was still at stake. Then Golchha on Monday directed that all police witnesses in criminal trials must appear in court physically to record their evidence, effectively rolling back the notification’s immediate impact.