Delhi Bar Dons Black Ribbons to Protest Police VC Testimony Rule

NEW DELHI – Members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) have initiated a symbolic protest, wearing black ribbons in court to oppose a recent notification by Delhi's Lieutenant Governor (LG), VK Saxena. The contentious directive designates all police stations in the capital as official locations for police officers to provide their testimony in court proceedings via video conferencing.

In a notice issued on August 27, the DHCBA called upon its members to adopt this form of protest until the notification, dated August 13, 2025, is rescinded. The notice states, "The members are requested to wear black ribbons while appearing in the court, as a mark of protest against the notification... till the time, the said notification is withdrawn."

This development marks a significant escalation in the legal fraternity's opposition to a measure they argue could undermine the principles of a fair trial and the integrity of the evidentiary process. The protest at the High Court follows a complete work-stoppage initiated on August 21 by the Coordination Committee of all district court bar associations in Delhi, which has brought trial court proceedings to a standstill.

The Contested Notification and Its Legal Basis

At the heart of the dispute is a notification issued by the LG's office which designates all 226 police stations across the National Capital Territory of Delhi as "designated places" for the purpose of recording evidence. This allows police officials, acting as prosecution witnesses, to depose before the courts remotely from their own stations.

The government has cited provisions within the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to justify the move. Specifically, the second proviso to Section 265(3) of the BNSS empowers the State Government to notify a "designated place" where a witness can be examined through "audio-video electronic means."

Furthermore, Section 308 of the BNSS, which mandates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused, also provides for this process to occur via audio-video link in the presence of the accused's advocate when the accused's personal attendance is dispensed with. The administration's position is that this notification is a step towards modernizing the justice system, saving time and resources by eliminating the need for police officers to physically travel to court for every hearing.

Grave Concerns from the Legal Community

The Bar, however, has vehemently opposed this interpretation and its practical application. Lawyers argue that a police station, being the seat of the prosecution's investigation and an environment inherently controlled by the police, cannot be considered a neutral venue for recording evidence.

The primary concerns raised by the protesting lawyers include:

1. Potential for Witness Coaching: Allowing a police witness to testify from their own station, surrounded by colleagues and superiors, raises significant fears of undue influence and coaching. Lawyers argue it would be impossible for the court or the defence counsel to ensure that the witness is not being prompted or guided off-screen.

2. Erosion of Cross-Examination: The sanctity of cross-examination, a cornerstone of the adversarial system designed to test the veracity of witness testimony, is at risk. Defence lawyers contend that the nuances of a witness's demeanor, body language, and hesitation—often crucial during cross-examination—are lost over a video link. A controlled environment like a police station further compromises the spontaneity required for an effective cross-examination.

3. Violation of Fair Trial Principles: The DHCBA and other bar associations argue that the notification creates an imbalance that heavily favours the prosecution, thereby violating the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard) is not merely about being heard, but being heard in a fair and impartial setting.

4. Misinterpretation of 'Designated Place': Legal experts challenging the notification argue that the spirit of the BNSS provision for a "designated place" was intended to refer to neutral, court-monitored facilities like dedicated video-conferencing rooms within court complexes or other neutral government buildings, not the office of the witness themselves, especially when the witness is a key part of the prosecution machinery.

In a strongly-worded condemnation preceding the protest, the DHCBA had labeled the notification as "arbitrary" and "detrimental to the administration of justice." The ongoing strike by the district courts and the black ribbon protest at the High Court underscore the depth of this professional opposition.

Legal Challenge and Future Implications

The battle is not confined to protests alone. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has already been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional and legal validity of the LG's notification. The matter is yet to be listed for a hearing, but its outcome will be keenly watched as it could set a major precedent for the implementation of the new criminal laws across the country.

The judiciary's stance will be critical. The courts will have to weigh the government's stated objectives of efficiency and modernization against the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that guarantee a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused. The case will likely require a deep dive into the legislative intent behind the BNSS provisions and an examination of whether a police station can, under any circumstances, serve as a quasi-judicial space for the recording of evidence.

As lawyers in the Delhi High Court continue to appear with black ribbons, their silent protest serves as a powerful visual reminder of the deep-seated conflict between administrative expediency and the foundational pillars of the justice system. The resolution of this impasse, whether through judicial intervention or executive reconsideration, will have lasting implications for the future of criminal trials in the digital age.