The Delhi High Court raised concerns over the LG’s August 13 notification designating police stations for recording police statements via video conferencing, saying it may compromise fair trials. The Court asked the Centre to explain the reasoning behind this choice by December 10.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the fairness of a controversial notification issued by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) on August 13, which had designated police stations as official places for recording the statements of police officers during criminal trials.
The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela orally observed that concerns raised against the notification had some merit.
The Court was worried that allowing police officers to give testimony from police stations might affect the fairness of criminal trials.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, the Court remarked,
“You (State) have the right to identify designated place, no difficulty in that. We are not challenging your powers to designate a place. But why police stations? That’s the only question. Why to designate place at the police station? You could designate a place neutral to your seat. Why are statements (usually) made in front of accused? Because it is fair, so that he knows and can rebut…You have to maintain neutrality. Conducting trial is also your responsibility. We have to create an environment for fair trial. This (August 13 notification) perhaps, prima facie, compromises the very concept of fair trial.”
The August 13 notification had allowed police personnel to testify through video conferencing from inside their police stations. This sparked immediate resistance from lawyers in Delhi, who went on strike from August 22.
Following the protests, the implementation of the notification was paused on August 28. Later, on September 7, the Delhi Police issued a circular clarifying that its officers would again appear physically before trial courts to give evidence.
During the hearing, petitioner and lawyer Raj Gaurav informed the Court that if the authorities were ready to withdraw the notification, his grievance would be addressed.
At this stage, Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked,
“Is it being acted upon at the moment?”
The petitioner replied,
“Partially, it has been acted upon. Time and again circulars were issued by Delhi Police. After there was uproar on ground, it was withdrawn.”
Justice Gedela then questioned,
“What is partially being acted upon? How is it discriminatory? You have to demonstrate to us. You are asking to strike down a notification.”
The petitioner argued that the back-and-forth with notifications was creating confusion and uncertainty in the trial process.
ALSO READ: 2012 Pune Blasts: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused After 12 Years in Jail
He said,
“It creates a chaotic situation every time a new notification is brought and withdrawn. The LG notification is not withdrawn. The larger issue of my PIL is with respect to BNSS Sections 265, 266. It should be in consultation of HC. Or else it would dilute powers.”
The plea also stated that the notification could have dangerous consequences. By allowing police officers to remain inside police stations while testifying, it increased risks of coercion, tutoring, and fabrication of evidence.
According to the petitioner, this would turn criminal trials into a mere formality, violating the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In court, he added,
“It dilutes transparency of the trial. If I ask a crucial question, he (police officer being cross-examined) can switch off the video.”
The Bench then asked ASG Sharma to return with a proper explanation as to why police stations were chosen as designated places for recording statements. However, the Court declined to issue a formal notice at this stage.
It still made it clear that the government needed to reconsider the matter, saying,
“Perhaps a lot of churning is needed at your end, not because they (lawyers) are agitated (but because) you (State) have to ensure fair trial.”
ALSO READ: Pune Court Move: Savarkar’s Grandnephew Demands Rahul Gandhi’s Presence in Defamation Row
ASG Sharma assured the Bench,
“We will come back on this.”
The Court adjourned the hearing to December 10, the date when another similar petition will also be taken up. Before closing the proceedings, the Bench reminded the ASG,
“You have three months to think. Please convey.”
Case Title:
Raj Gaurav v. Union of India and Others.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Police Testimony
