Delhi HC PIL Challenges LG’s Order on Police Testimony From Stations Amid Lawyers’ Strike

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi that designates video conference rooms in police stations as “Designated Places” for recording the evidence of police personnel through video conferencing.

Filed by Advocate Kapil Madan through Advocate Gurmukh Singh Arora and Ayushi Bisht, the PIL assails the legality, validity, and constitutional propriety of the notification issued by the Home (General) Department, GNCTD, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor.

According to the plea, the notification strikes at the very root of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution by permitting prosecution witnesses, namely, police officials, to depose from within their own official precincts. Such an arrangement, it argues, undermines the solemnity of judicial proceedings, facilitates tutoring or selective reference to departmental records, and irreversibly tilts the adversarial balance in favour of the prosecution.

“Furthermore, it also violates the fundamental principle nemo judex in causa sua (no one can be a judge in his own cause), since witnesses would testify from within their own sphere of authority, thereby creating a perception of bias,” the plea states.

It has been further pointed out that neither the Bar associations nor the judicial authorities were consulted before the issuance of the notification, making it arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and ultra vires. It stresses that a witness deposing from his own workplace, in the presence of colleagues and superiors, cannot be equated to one deposing before a judicial officer in open court. “The possibility of subtle influence, departmental coercion, or rehearsed testimony is inescapable,” the plea before the court submits.

The plea further argues that the notification creates an arbitrary classification by granting police witnesses the convenience of testifying from their offices, while civilian witnesses, including victims, complainants, and defence witnesses, remain bound to depose in a court of law. Such unequal treatment of similarly situated classes of witnesses, the plea contends, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Invoking Article 50, which mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive, the plea argues that the executive has usurped judicial powers by designating deposition centres. It has cited Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which requires evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused under judicial supervision, an aspect which the notification sidesteps.

Highlighting the the notification is in contravention of Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 and the ones recently passed in 2025, the plea states,” The Delhi High Court VC Rules, permit the use of video conferencing only on a. case-to-case basis at the discretion of the Court, and strictly from neutral and authorised centres such as VC cabins in courts or notified facilities. The impugned Notification illegally circumvents these Rules by granting a blanket executive permission to police officials to depose from their own stations, which are partisan spaces under the control of the witness himself. This directly undermines judicial control envisaged under the Rules.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), the PIL adds that video conferencing was permitted only under strict safeguards, including neutral venues and judicial supervision. Allowing depositions from police stations, it argues, runs contrary to this precedent.

Raising concerns of witness tampering, coaching, and compromised handling of evidence, the plea has stated that this arrangement erodes the credibility of testimony and jeopardises the fairness of trials.

“The petitioner, being a practising lawyer, has directly witnessed how fragile the balance of justice can be in criminal cases. The notification, by tilting the scales in favour of the prosecution, will irreparably prejudice accused persons and compromise public confidence in the justice system,” the plea states.

The PIL, therefore, seeks the quashing of the impugned notification as unconstitutional and ultra vires, and urges the court to direct that depositions of police officials continue to be recorded only in court.

Title: Kapil Madan Versus Union of India

Date: 26 August 2025