Delhi Advocates Oppose Notification Allowing Police to Depose from Stations via Video Conferencing
New Delhi:
Advocate Harish Gola, Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Shahdara Bar Association (SBA), has urged the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi, Shri Vinai Kumar Saxena, to withdraw the Notification dated 13.08.2025 that permits police officials to record their evidence in courts through video conferencing directly from police stations.
Calling it a serious threat to fair trial and judicial transparency, Gola submitted that the move could compromise the independence of court proceedings and erode public trust in the justice system.
“The courts must not only be fair but also appear to be fair. Allowing testimony from police stations creates an environment of bias and weakens effective cross-examination, which is the cornerstone of a fair trial,” he said.
He pointed out that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee every citizen the right to an impartial trial. By enabling police officers to depose from the safety and authority of their own stations, the Notification risks turning cross-examination into a mere formality.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, including State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai (2003) and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), Gola stressed that while video conferencing is legally acceptable, it must happen under strict court supervision to ensure neutrality.
Advocate Gola said that he has also given a memorandum in this regard to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
The move has already triggered widespread protests across all Delhi district courts, with thousands of advocates abstaining from work. According to Gola, this agitation reflects not just the professional concerns of lawyers but also their commitment to safeguard citizens’ faith in the judiciary.
“Justice delivery must be open, transparent, and above suspicion. The Notification undermines this very foundation. In the larger public interest, it should be withdrawn without delay,” Gola appealed.
Advocates believe that such a step, if unchecked, could set a dangerous precedent for the future of judicial proceedings.
