The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised serious concerns over a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) that permits police officials to present evidence virtually from police stations, observing that the measure “prima facie compromises the concept of fair trial.”
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that while the LG had the authority to designate places for recording depositions, the choice of police stations as venues was questionable.
The bench asked Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma to explain why police stations were chosen, stressing the importance of neutrality in criminal proceedings.
“What is fair trial? Whether this right of fair trial of an accused is not being compromised by permitting prosecution witnesses to make depositions from their own places? We can understand there is some difficulty in formal witnesses or investigating officers. You have the right to designate a place, no difficulty in that. We are not challenging your powers, but why police stations? That’s the only question,” the court remarked.
The judges underlined that depositions must be conducted in the presence of the accused to ensure fairness.
“You could designate a place which is neutral… Conducting trial is your responsibility. You have to create an environment where any accused gets an opportunity to face fair trial. This perhaps prima facie compromises the concept of fair trial,” the bench added.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Raj Gaurav, who challenged the August 13 notification on the grounds that it undermined neutrality and transparency in trials. The notification designates all police stations in the capital as approved locations for police officers and personnel to depose through video conferencing.
The petitioner argued that allowing policemen to testify from within police stations gave them an undue advantage over other witnesses, whose depositions would still take place in court.
“The policemen have an edge when being cross-examined in their own premises. It compromises transparency. Some policeman could be deposing on a mobile phone with a screen on behind; if asked a crucial question and he doesn’t know the answer, he might switch off the video conference,” he contended.
He also pointed to the larger issue of the enabling proviso under Section 266(3), which, he argued, needed judicial scrutiny.
ASG Chetan Sharma sought time to take instructions on the matter, after which the bench posted the case for hearing on December 10, along with another similar plea.
While the petitioner urged the court to ensure that the notification was not enforced in the meantime, the bench clarified that the validity of the proviso could only be tested on legislative grounds.
