Petition in Delhi HC challenges LG’s notification on police video testimony

The petition argues that the notification is contrary to section 308 of BNSS, 2023, which requires recording of evidence in the accused’s presence and under the control of the presiding judge

Days after continuous protests by lawyers across Delhi’s district courts, a petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena’s August 13 notification allowing police officers to depose before courts via video conferencing from designated police stations.

Lawyers burn an effigy during their strike against an order issued by Delhi LG VK Saxena, allowing police to virtually present evidence in courts from police stations, at Tis Hazari Courts Complex on Monday. (PTI)

The petition, filed on Tuesday by advocate Kapil Madan and argued by advocates Gurmukh Singh Arora and Ayushi Bisht, contends that the move undermines the solemnity of judicial proceedings, violates the right to a fair trial, and tilts the adversarial balance in favour of the prosecution. Saxena had approved the notification designating all 226 police stations in the Capital as video-conferencing centres for officers to provide evidence, in line with the draft model rules of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The stated aim of the measure was to “improve efficiency and save time” by freeing up manpower and resources.

The petition argues that the notification is contrary to section 308 of BNSS, 2023, which requires recording of evidence in the accused’s presence and under the control of the presiding judge. “It violates the fundamental principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be a judge in his own case), since witnesses would testify from within their own sphere of authority, thereby creating a perception of bias. By unilaterally designating police stations as deposition centres, the Executive has usurped judicial powers, thereby violating Article 50, which mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive,” the plea states.

Madan has also contended that the measure creates unacceptable risks of witness tampering, tutoring, and a break in the chain of evidence. The petition is likely to be mentioned before chief justice DK Upadhyay’s bench on Wednesday.

The Coordination Committee of Delhi’s district court bar associations had earlier called for abstaining from work on Friday and Saturday after the authorities failed to withdraw the notification. Lawyers held a sit-in protest outside court complexes on Monday and boycotted proceedings again on Tuesday, alleging that the move facilitates manipulation of evidence and erodes fair trial standards.

The Delhi High Court Bar Association on Friday condemned the order, while the Supreme Court Bar Association also extended support, calling it a threat to judicial independence. On Monday, the Bar Council of India (BCI) wrote to Saxena seeking immediate withdrawal, warning that such testimony undermines judicial control over proceedings and increases the risk of procedural errors.