Karnataka High Court Rekha Gupta Video Conferencing Rules Relaxed for US-Based Witness in Probate Case - 2026-07-03

Karnataka High Court Rekha Gupta Video Conferencing Rules Relaxed for US-Based Witness in Probate Case

Bangalore, July 3, 2026 : The High Court of Karnataka on Friday eased the stringent Video Conferencing Rules for Courts to allow a 71-year-old widow to record her evidence from the United States in an uncontested probate case. The Court dispensed with the requirement of an Indian Embassy official as coordinator, setting a pragmatic precedent for senior citizens and overseas witnesses.

A Widow’s Quest for Justice from Abroad

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, the petitioner, is the sole executrix and beneficiary under the last Will of her husband, late Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta, who passed away on September 29, 2024. She filed a probate petition before the VI Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural, seeking to administer the estate. However, with no relatives in India and drawing a green card in the US, she relocated to live with her son. Her age and travel restrictions made it impossible to attend court in person.

In December 2025, Mrs. Gupta filed an application under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with the Video Conferencing Rules, seeking permission to depose via video link from her residence in the US. The trial court, however, had not decided the application even after a year, prompting her to move the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Court Rejects Rigid Visa for Cross-Border Testimony

The primary hurdle was Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, which mandates that an official from an Indian Consulate, Embassy, or High Commission must be present as a coordinator at the remote point when a witness is being examined from overseas. The High Court, relying on its power to relax under Rule 18, held that such a requirement would cause undue hardship in this non-adversarial proceeding.

“The record reflects that despite public notices issued through publication in ‘Kannada Prabha’ and ‘Indian Express’, there were no objectors to the Will,” noted Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju. “Since the petition remained uncontested, the matter was fixed for petitioner’s evidence on 18.06.2025.”

The Court further observed that “the petitioner is a senior citizen and this delay is causing great prejudice to her as she is unable to enjoy the fruits of the immovable and movable property bequeathed to her by her late husband.”

Guided by Precedent: Richa Mishra’s Case

The decision drew heavily from a co-ordinate bench ruling in Richa Mishra v. State of Karnataka (NC:2025:KHC:38100), which held that the power to relax the Video Conferencing Rules, particularly when the deponent is outside the country, vests solely with the High Court. In line with that principle, the Court exercised its discretion to waive the Embassy-coordinator requirement.

Safeguards Ensured

While relaxing the rules, the Court imposed strict conditions to preserve the integrity of the evidence:

• The petitioner must file an undertaking that she will not disconnect or permit any obstruction during the recording.
• Any disconnection attributable to her will result in her entire evidence being discarded.
• The trial court may impose additional safeguards as it deems fit.

The order specifically relaxed Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, to the extent that the services of the Indian Embassy are not required.

Expeditious Disposal Ordered

In addition to the video conferencing relief, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the probate matter expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of the order. The petition was accordingly allowed, with all pending applications closed.

“This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to harness technology to ensure justice, especially for vulnerable litigants like senior citizens living abroad,” commented the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Sameer Sharma.

The ruling is expected to guide similar requests for remote testimony in civil proceedings, where the adversarial element is minimal and the litigant’s personal circumstances merit relaxation of procedural norms.