JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

I.A. 5080/2026 (seeking permission to cross examine PW-6 through VC)

1. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking permission for conducting cross-examination of PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen, aged about 71 years, through video conferencing, as the matter is listed before the learned Joint Registrar for her cross-examination.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the present matter is at the stage of cross-examination of PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen. It is submitted that PW-6 is about 71 years of age, resides in Uttarakhand and is suffering from age-related health conditions, on account of which she has been specifically advised rest by her doctor. It is, therefore, contended that she is unable to appear physically before this Court for her cross- examination. The learned counsel further submits that PW-6 has already travelled to Delhi on three occasions and had remained present for her cross-examination on 05.11.2024, 10.02.2025 and 24.07.2025. However, her cross-examination could not take place on any of the said dates. It is submitted that on 05.11.2024, an adjournment had been sought by the learned counsel for the respondent on account of the latter‟s illness; on 10.02.2025, the Court was on leave; and on 24.07.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unavailable due to a bereavement in the family. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel submits that PW-6 may be permitted to be cross-examined through video conferencing, so as to avoid further inconvenience to the elderly witness and ensure that the proceedings are not unnecessarily delayed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/applicant, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the view that it is not disputed that PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen, is a crucial witness in the present case and is about 71 years of age. Undisputedly, she resides in Uttarakhand and is stated to be suffering from age-related health issues, and owing to her age and medical condition, has been advised rest by her doctor and is unable to undertake further physical travel to Delhi for the purpose of her cross-examination. The learned counsel for the respondent has also not disputed that she is suffering from age related health issues.

4. This Court further notes that PW-6 had already travelled to Delhi on three occasions for the purpose of her cross-examination, namely, on 05.11.2024, 10.02.2025 and 24.07.2025. However, her cross-examination could not be undertaken on any of these dates. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, on 05.11.2024, an adjournment had been sought on behalf of the respondent on account of illness; on 10.02.2025, the Court was on leave; and on 24.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner was unavailable due to a bereavement in the family. Thus, despite PW-6 having travelled to Delhi on three separate occasions, her cross-examination remained incomplete for reasons which, as stated, had arisen on the respective dates.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid circumstances call for a pragmatic approach, since requiring her to undertake further physical journeys from Uttarakhand to Delhi, despite her age and the health-related difficulties stated to be faced by her, would cause her avoidable hardship. At the same time, the cross-examination of a witness constitutes an important facet of a fair adjudicatory process, and the respondent‟s right to test the testimony of PW-6 must remain fully protected. The question, therefore, is whether the mode of recording her cross-examination can be suitably adapted to the circumstances without compromising the fairness or effectiveness of the proceedings.

6. In this regard, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 [hereafter „2021 Rules‟]. The 2021 Rules specif