Bar Associations Mount Unified Opposition to Delhi LG's Police VC Testimony Notification

New Delhi – The legal community has presented a united front in opposition to a recent notification by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG), with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) becoming the latest and one of the most prominent bodies to demand its immediate withdrawal. The contentious notification, dated August 13, 2025, permits police personnel to provide evidence in trial proceedings from police stations via video conferencing, a move that lawyers' associations argue strikes at the very heart of judicial independence and the principles of a fair trial.

In a strongly-worded, unanimous resolution, SCAORA condemned the measure, articulating deep-seated concerns over its potential to erode the sanctity of the judicial process. The association warned that the move risks creating an "institutional imbalance, whereby the machinery of investigation is permitted to intrude upon and influence the solemn process of judicial proof."

The notification has ignited a firestorm of protest across the capital, uniting bar associations from the Supreme Court down to the district courts in a rare display of solidarity. Public protests are currently being staged by lawyers in Delhi's trial courts, amplifying the call for the LG to rescind the directive.

The Contours of the Controversial Directive

The LG’s notification was issued pursuant to the powers granted under the second proviso to Section 265(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the new criminal procedure code set to replace the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision allows for witnesses to be examined by "audio-video electronic means" at a designated place notified by the state government.

Exercising this power, the notification designated all 226 police stations in the national capital as permissible venues for police officials to depose before courts and present their evidence through a video-conferencing mechanism. The stated intent is likely to streamline proceedings and reduce the logistical burden of police officers physically appearing in court. However, the legal fraternity argues that this perceived efficiency comes at an unacceptably high cost to the administration of justice.

A Challenge to Judicial Sanctity and Fair Trial

The core of the legal community's opposition lies in the fundamental distinction between a courtroom and a police station. SCAORA’s resolution emphasized that courts function as open, public forums accessible to all stakeholders, including litigants, advocates, and the general public, which underpins the transparency of the judicial process. Conversely, police stations are inherently restricted, executive facilities operating under a command structure.

“Testimonies delivered in such a controlled environment, even through electronic means, could raise apprehensions about undue influence or manipulation of evidence,” SCAORA stated. This sentiment echoes a widespread fear among criminal law practitioners that a witness deposing from within their own station, surrounded by colleagues and superiors, cannot be considered to be in a neutral environment. The subtle and overt pressures within such a setting could compromise the voluntariness and veracity of their testimony, which is the bedrock of a fair trial.

This concern is amplified by the practical realities of a trial, where a judge's ability to observe a witness's demeanor—a crucial, albeit intangible, aspect of assessing credibility—is already constrained by a video link. Placing that witness in an environment controlled by the investigative agency itself introduces a variable that many argue is incompatible with the principles of natural justice.

Unilateral Action and Lack of Consultation

A significant point of contention raised by SCAORA and other bar associations is the unilateral nature of the decision. The lawyers' body expressed profound regret that the notification was issued without any prior consultation with the judiciary or representative bodies of the Bar.

“Both are essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system,” the SCAORA statement noted, highlighting a procedural lapse that has been perceived as a slight to the two other pillars of the justice system. The associations argue that such a significant procedural reform, which alters the dynamics of evidence recording, demands comprehensive dialogue and consensus-building. By circumventing this process, the notification has fostered an atmosphere of distrust.

The collective call to action urges the Lieutenant Governor not only to withdraw the current measure but also to "initiate a comprehensive dialogue before considering any such procedural reforms" in the future.

A Chorus of Condemnation

SCAORA's resolution follows a wave of similar condemnations from other influential legal bodies. Last week, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and the Coordination Committee of the Delhi District Court Bar Associations all issued resolutions voicing their staunch opposition.

This widespread and coordinated resistance from every level of the Bar underscores the gravity of the concerns. It reflects a shared belief that the notification is not merely an administrative tweak but a fundamental alteration that could have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the fair administration of criminal justice.

Reaffirming its commitment to constitutional values and judicial independence, SCAORA emphasized a point that resonates deeply within the legal profession: the venue and atmosphere of testimony are not trivial details. They "matter significantly to maintaining public faith in judicial processes." For justice not only to be done but to be seen to be done, the environment in which evidence is given must be, and must be perceived as, neutral, open, and free from any potential for coercion or influence. The current standoff between the executive and the legal fraternity in Delhi puts this very principle to the test.