The Delhi High Court will hear a plea on September 3 challenging the Lieutenant Governor’s order that allows police officials to record evidence virtually from police stations, amid the ongoing strike by lawyers in the capital’s district judiciary.
New Delhi: In the ongoing strike by lawyers in the district courts of the capital, a petition was filed in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday challenging the Lieutenant Governor’s order that allows police officials to record evidence virtually from police stations.
The petition was presented for urgent consideration to a bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Recognizing it as a public interest litigation, the court scheduled the hearing for September 3.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Kapil Madan in Kapil Madan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors, contends that the notification undermines the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it allows prosecution witnesses, primarily police officials, to testify from their own official precincts.
The petitioners argue that the notification violates several constitutional and procedural principles:
- Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): The notification creates an arbitrary and unreasonable classification by giving police witnesses the convenience of testifying from their offices while other witnesses are required to appear in court.
- Undermining the Judiciary and Separation of Powers: By designating police stations as deposition centers, the Executive allegedly usurped judicial powers, contrary to Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive.
- Risk of Witness Tampering: Lawyers argue that allowing officers to testify from police stations increases the risk of coaching or undue influence by senior officers, threatening the integrity of evidence.
- Contravention of Criminal Procedure & Delhi HC Rules: The notification is claimed to be contrary to the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, which govern how virtual depositions should be conducted.
- Compromise of Evidence Handling: Physical evidence, like seized items or weapons, cannot be effectively presented in remote depositions, potentially undermining the fairness of trials.
Earlier, The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) expressed strong opposition to a notification issued on August 13, 2025, by the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, which designates police stations as the official venues for recording evidence from police officials.
In a resolution dated August 22, 2025, the SCBA President and Executive Committee emphasized the seriousness of this issue, noting its direct impact on judicial independence and the fairness of the justice system.
The Association deems the notification not only unfair but also detrimental.
Case Title: Kapil Madan v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors