Absence of Medical Certificate Can't Defeat Virtual Evidence Plea: Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling on procedural fairness, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a trial court cannot reject a plea for recording evidence through video conferencing solely on the ground that no medical certificate was furnished to establish physical infirmity. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa set aside an order of the trial court and directed it to reconsider the matter in light of the High Court's Video Conferencing Rules.

The Case: A 72-Year-Old's Plea for Virtual Testimony

The petitioner, Daljitinder Kaur @ Daljit Inder Arora , a 72-year-old plaintiff in a civil suit, suffers from severe arthritis and has been advised knee replacement. She approached the trial court seeking permission to record her evidence through video conferencing, citing her age and medical condition. The trial court dismissed her application on the sole ground that she had not furnished a medical certificate at the time of filing the application.

High Court's Intervention: Rules Trump Rigid Formalities

Challenging the trial court's order, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. A.S. Narang, argued that the court had overlooked Rule 8.15 of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution. This rule specifically allows video conferencing from the location of a person who is unable to reach the court point or remote point due to sickness or physical infirmity. The Rules also contain comprehensive safeguards to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, including identity verification, administration of oath, recording of objections, preservation of audio-visual recordings, and incorporation of signed transcripts into the judicial record.

Justice Nalwa found merit in these submissions, observing that the Video Conferencing Rules are designed precisely for such situations. The court noted that the petitioner had placed on record a medical certificate showing she suffers from arthritis and has been advised knee replacement. The mere absence of a medical certificate at the initial stage could not defeat the prayer when the Rules themselves recognize physical infirmity as a valid ground for virtual evidence.

Key Observations from the Judgment

"The mere absence of a medical certificate at the stage of consideration of the application could not be made the basis for rejecting the prayer, particularly when the Rules themselves provide for recording of evidence through video conferencing in appropriate cases of physical infirmity ."

The court further emphasized that the Rules contemplate adequate safeguards to ensure the sanctity and authenticity of proceedings, including verification of identity, administration of oath, recording of objections, preservation of the audio-visual recording, and incorporation of the signed transcript on the judicial record.

The Decision: A Second Chance with Proper Documentation

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated July 3, 2026, but granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application within two weeks, accompanied by all requisite documents, including the relevant provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules and her medical records. The trial court was directed to consider this fresh application in accordance with law, taking into account the petitioner's age, medical condition, and the specific provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules.

The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the fresh application, leaving it to the trial court to decide independently. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of justice, especially when the law itself provides a mechanism to accommodate the needs of physically infirm litigants.