Petition in Delhi HC Challenges LG’s Notification on Police Video Testimony

Days after Continuous Protests by Lawyers Across Delhi’s District Courts, A Petition Has Been Filed In the Delhi High Court Challenging Lieutenant Governor VK SAXENA ‘ Allowing police officers to deposit before courts via video conferencing from designated police stations.

The petition, filed on tuesday by advocate kapil madan and argued by advocates gurmukh singh arora and ayushi bisht, contends that the move undermines the solemnity of judicial procedings, violates the rigry To a fair trial, and tilts the adversarial balance in favor of the prosecution. Saxena Had Approved The Notification Designating All 226 Police Stations in the Capital as Video-Conference Center for Officers to Provide Evidence, In Line With The Draft Model Rule Rule Rule Rule Rule Rule Rule Sanhita (BNSS). The stated aim of the measure was to “Improve efficiency and save time” by freeing up manpower and resources.

The petition argues that the notification is continue to section 308 of BNSS, 2023, which requires recording of evidence in the accused’s presence and under the context. “It Violates the Fundamental Principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (No One Can Be a Judge in His Own Case), Since Witnesses Bold Testify from with Authority, Thehare Perception of Bias Executive, “The please states.

Madan has also contend that the measure creates unacceptable risk of witness tamping, tutoring, and a break in the chain of evidence. The petition is likely to be mentioned before chief justice dk upadhyay’s bench on wedding on wedding on.

The Coordination Committee of Delhi’s District Court Bar Association Had Earlier Called for Abstain from work on Friday and Saturday after the Authorities Failed to with Withdraw The Notification. Lawyers Held a Sit-in Protest Outside Court Complexes on Monday and Boycotted Proceedings Again on Tuesday, Alleging that the move facilitates manipulation of evidence and eraodes fairy trial standards.

The Delhi High Court Bar Association on Friday condemned the order, while the Supreme Court Bar Association also extended supported support, calling it a thret to judicial independence. On Monday, The Bar Council of India (BCI) Wrote to Saxena seeking immediative withdrawal, warning that such testimony undermines judicial control over processes and incurses the risk of procedure.