Delhi High Court Bar Association Slams LG's Order on Virtual Police Depositions from Stations

A significant legal battle is brewing in the capital as the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has issued a scathing condemnation of Lieutenant Governor Vinai Saxena's recent order. The controversial directive permits police witnesses to depose virtually from the confines of police stations, a move the DHCBA labels as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, fundamentally threatening the sanctity of fair trial and open court principles.

The DHCBA, representing a vast number of legal professionals, has articulated profound concerns, asserting that the order gravely undermines judicial scrutiny and the bedrock of due process.

Their primary objection stems from the belief that police stations are inherently intimidating environments, rendering them entirely unsuitable for the unbiased and free deposition of witnesses. The presence of senior officers and the general atmosphere within a police station could, they argue, inadvertently coerce or influence testimony, thereby compromising the pursuit of justice.

Central to the DHCBA's argument is the principle of the "open court," which mandates transparency and public accessibility during legal proceedings.

Virtual depositions from police stations, away from designated court complexes or neutral venues, are seen as a direct affront to this principle, potentially shrouding the process in opacity and eroding public trust in the judicial system. The association emphasized that virtual testimonies should always occur under the direct supervision and control of the court, ensuring impartiality and preventing any form of undue influence.

Furthermore, the DHCBA highlighted the existence of comprehensive guidelines — the Delhi High Court's 'Video Conferencing Rules, 2021' — which already provide a robust framework for virtual depositions.

These rules were formulated with careful consideration to balance technological advancements with the imperatives of fair trial. The LG's new order, issued without prior consultation with the High Court, is therefore seen as a bypass of established legal protocols and a unilateral imposition that disregards the judiciary's expertise in procedural matters.

The order, issued by the Delhi Home Department on behalf of the LG, outlines a procedure where a 'nodal officer,' typically an SHO or an officer of higher rank, would be responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of virtual appearances.

It also mentions providing necessary infrastructure and the presence of a court official. However, for the DHCBA, these provisions do not mitigate the fundamental issues of environment and potential coercion. They stress that the location itself—the police station—is the core problem, regardless of who is supervising.

In response to what they perceive as a grave assault on the administration of justice, the DHCBA has resolved to challenge the order before the Delhi High Court.

This upcoming legal battle will undoubtedly scrutinize the balance between administrative convenience and the fundamental rights to a fair trial, underscoring the legal fraternity's unwavering commitment to upholding the integrity and independence of the judicial process in India.