Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena,issued a notification on 13 August 2025 invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, declared that every police station in the capital would serve as a designated venue for recording police testimony through video conferencing.

Though framed as an administrative measure to ease the strain on courts and reduce the burden on police personnel, the move drew immediate and widespread opposition from the legal fraternity. Lawyers argued that shifting depositions into police stations not only departed from long-standing safeguards of criminal procedure but also risked eroding the fairness of trials by insulating witnesses from the transparency of open court.

At the core of their concern was the principle that credibility cannot be judged by words alone, but also by demeanour under direct questioning. The ability of defence counsel and judges to observe hesitation, evasion, or candour in real time was seen as indispensable to adversarial testing. The idea of police witnesses speaking from the relatively controlled environment of a police station raised fears of undue influence and weakened scrutiny.

In response, the Coordination Committee of All District Bar Associations issued a forty-eight-hour ultimatum demanding withdrawal of the order. When the administration did not relent, a strike began on 22 August, paralysing proceedings across Delhi’s district courts and halting even high-profile prosecutions led by the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate. The Delhi High Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court Bar Association, and several other bodies joined in, branding the order inconsistent with the principles of open justice.

Talks with representatives of the Union Home Ministry and the Police Commissioner followed, during which assurances were given that no implementation would take place without consultation. On that basis, some bar bodies suspended their strike, though scepticism remained widespread. Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court admitted a public interest petition challenging the constitutionality of the notification, arguing that testimony delivered from police stations compromised impartiality and undermined the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A provisional settlement emerged on 4 September, when the office of the Commissioner of Police clarified the scope of the measure. In a communication addressed to the Principal District and Sessions Judges, it was stated that only formal witnesses those whose functions are routine or procedural, such as registering FIRs would be allowed to depose by video link.

Material witnesses including investigating officers and others directly involved in gathering evidence, would continue to appear in person before the court. Judicial discretion was also preserved, enabling judges to insist on physical presence whenever required in the interests of justice.

This clarification has, for the moment, tempered the immediate unrest, but the controversy underscores a larger tension within the criminal justice system: the effort to reconcile administrative efficiency with the irreducible requirements of fairness. For many advocates, testimony remains inseparable from the live observation of a witness under cross-examination, something that no technological substitute can fully replicate.

The question that now lingers is how far digital innovations can reshape trial procedure without diluting its substantive guarantees, and whether the legitimacy of criminal adjudication can truly withstand the substitution of face-to-face justice with virtual convenience

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting