Delhi LG’s Virtual Deposition Rule on Hold After Lawyer Strikes Paralyze Courts

NEW DELHI — The contentious notification issued by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor, which designated police stations as venues for police officers to depose in court via video conferencing, has been put on hold following an intense, week-long protest by the capital's legal fraternity that brought trial court proceedings to a virtual standstill. The Delhi Police announced on August 28, 2025, that the implementation of the August 13 directive would be paused pending a high-level meeting between the Union Home Minister and representatives of the Bar.

The decision marks a temporary truce in a heated confrontation between the administration and lawyers over what the latter have decried as a fundamental assault on the principles of a fair trial. The notification, issued under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, has united bar associations from the district courts to the Supreme Court in an unprecedented show of solidarity, arguing that allowing police witnesses to testify from the controlled environment of their own stations undermines judicial sanctity and jeopardizes the rights of the accused.

The Controversial Notification and Its Legal Basis

At the heart of the dispute is a notification issued by the Delhi LG, invoking powers under Section 265(3) of the BNSS. This provision allows for the examination of witnesses through "audio-video electronic means" at a "designated place to be notified by the State Government." The LG's order designated all 226 police stations in Delhi—including specialized units like the Crime Branch and Economic Offences Wing—as such places.

The administration’s stated rationale was efficiency. Citing that over 2,000 police officers depose in various Delhi courts daily, a note from the Raj Niwas argued the measure would "drastically" reduce travel time, freeing up police personnel for investigative duties and ostensibly expediting the disposal of Delhi’s 1.35 million pending criminal cases.

However, the legal community immediately raised alarms, interpreting the move not as a procedural enhancement but as a substantive blow to due process.

A Unified Bar Pushes Back: The Core Legal Objections

The opposition was swift, widespread, and rooted in foundational legal principles. The Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi, representing 1.65 lakh lawyers, called for a complete cessation of work from August 21 to August 27. They were soon joined in their condemnation by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Bar Council of India (BCI), and, notably, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

The lawyers' arguments coalesce around several key legal and constitutional concerns:

• Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial (Article 21): This is the central pillar of the opposition. The bar associations contend that a fair trial necessitates an open, neutral, and impartial environment for the recording of evidence. A police station, being the institutional stronghold of the prosecution's key witnesses, is inherently biased and intimidating. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kapil Madan in the Delhi High Court explicitly argues that the notification strikes at the root of Article 21 by allowing prosecution witnesses to testify from their official precincts.

• Compromising the Sanctity of Open Court: The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued a powerful resolution on August 27, warning that the notification risks creating a dangerous “perception of institutional imbalance,” permitting the investigative machinery to intrude upon the judicial process. SCAORA stressed that courts are open public forums, while police stations are restricted facilities, and testimony from such a controlled environment could raise serious concerns of "undue influence or manipulation of evidence."

• Inability to Assess Witness Demeanour: A cornerstone of the law of evidence is the ability of the judge and defence counsel to observe the non-verbal cues and demeanour of a witness during cross-examination. Lawyers argue that this crucial aspect of testimony is severely diluted, if not entirely lost, through a video link, particularly when the witness is in a familiar and controlled setting. This, they claim, hampers the court's ability to ascertain the veracity of the evidence.

• Risk of Witness Coaching and Evidence Tampering: A major practical concern is the potential for off-camera prompting or coordination. Advocate Tarun Rana, Secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association, explained a common trial scenario: "Suppose there are two police witnesses... one of them is made to stay outside the court. He doesn’t know what we’re asking the other witness. This way, we can verify and point out contradictions." He argued that if depositions occur from the same station, such contradictions could be easily ironed out, rendering cross-examination ineffective.

• Conflict with Central Directives: Lawyers have also pointed to a potential contradiction with a July 2024 circular from the Union Home Secretary, which reportedly advised that "police stations or the place under the control of the Police Department may not be designated as a place for examination of witnesses through audio-video electronic means." The Delhi LG's notification appears to be in direct contravention of this guidance, raising questions of legality and procedural propriety.

Protests, PILs, and a Pause

The week-long strike by district court lawyers significantly disrupted judicial work, with most trial hearings deferred. The DHCBA asked its members to wear black ribbons in solidarity, and the protests garnered political attention, with both the Aam Aadmi Party and the Delhi Congress criticizing the LG's "dictatorial" order.

With pressure mounting, the legal challenge also moved to the courts. At least two PILs have been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the notification's constitutional validity, with one scheduled for hearing on September 3, 2025.

Faced with a paralyzed court system and a united legal front, the administration blinked. In a statement released on August 28, the Delhi Police confirmed the operational pause: “In view of the above, to address and resolve the concerns, it has been decided that Union Home Minister would meet the representatives of the Bar to discuss the issue with open mind. In the meantime, the operation of the said notification on the ground would only be carried out after hearing all stakeholders.”

Following this assurance, the Coordination Committee called off the strike, allowing courts to resume normal functioning.

The Unresolved Debate: Modernization vs. Due Process

While the immediate crisis has been defused, the underlying conflict remains. The episode highlights the inherent tension between the drive for technological modernization in the justice system and the imperative to safeguard long-established principles of due process. While video conferencing has been embraced for various judicial functions, its application for recording substantive evidence—especially that of police witnesses—has opened a new front in the debate over fair trial rights.

The legal community remains adamant that unless the notification is withdrawn in its entirety, the fight is not over. The upcoming meeting with the Union Home Minister will be a critical test of whether the administration is willing to heed the profound concerns raised by the sentinels of the judicial process, or if this pause is merely a prelude to another confrontation over the future of criminal trials in the digital age.