Why Delhi Lawyers Are Protesting…

‘As a defence lawyer I won’t know if a policeman under cross questioning is being prompted to answer by someone behind his computer screen.’

IMAGE: Lawyers protest against the notification issued by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena declaring video conferencing rooms in police stations as designated places for recording of evidence, August 28, 2025. Photograph: Screen grab/ANI on X

Delhi’s lawyers are up in arms over a recent notification issued by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.

On August 13, 2025, Saxena notified that Delhi police personnel will appear for cross-examination via video conferencing from their respective police stations, eliminating the need for their physical presence in courts.

In other words, video conferencing rooms in police stations have included in the designated places for recording of evidence.

Criminal lawyers have been up in arms over this decision and have been staging protests over the last few days. On Friday, August 29, they are expected to meet Saxena to convey the reasons for their opposition to the decision.

Heeding the opposition, the Delhi police commissioner on Thursday announced that Union Home Minister Amit Shah will meet representatives of the bar over the issue, and in the meantime the decision to allow policemen to depose via video conferencing has been kept in abeyance.

In an interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff, advocate Vijay Bishnoi, secretary, Rouse Avenue Court Bar Association, voiced serious concerns over the decision, warning that it undermines core principles of criminal jurisprudence and compromises the defence’s ability to conduct fair and effective cross-examinations.

Why are lawyers in Delhi protesting against the LG’s order allowing policemen to depose via video recording instead of being present physically in court?

The LG’s notification on August 13, 2025 stated that there will be a designated place for witnesses (when the trial is going on in court).

Designated place in police stations?

It was not written ‘police station’ earlier, but now the LG says police officers will be made a witness from (any of) the 226 police stations in Delhi.

We are against this because in criminal jurisprudence, if the police starts deposing in a case from police stations, then cross examination (by defence lawyers) won’t be possible in future.

But what is the problem if the police is ready for cross examination via video conferencing?

It is very difficult to explain if someone does not know about criminal trial proceedings in courts as there is a lot of nitty-gritty.

For example, if a case is going on under the Arms Act and a defence lawyer is trying to bring discrepancy in the case during cross questioning of the policeman, he finds the policeman is not present in the court but sitting in a far off police station via video conference.

As a defence lawyer I will not know if a policeman under cross questioning is being prompted to answer by someone behind his computer screen as I am unable to see him physically in court.

On the other hand, if a policeman is present in the court, all aspects of the prosecution’s investigation are covered, like even watching the body language of the policeman while cross questioning is on.

You mean just having a policeman present in court makes a lot of difference for defence lawyers?

Yes, because when you do video conference then things are different. If caught on the wrong foot by a defence lawyer during cross questioning, the policeman can always shut down the video by stating there is a technical glitch.

Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now defunct) stated that any statement given (by accused) to a police official is not admissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Why this was stated? Because there is no trust factor on the police and moreover, you cannot let one investigating agency get in such a comfort zone.

Does it mean that this new law gives more power to the police and weakens the defence lawyer’s position?

Yes, that is the case.

Have you met the lieutenant governor over this?

Yes, we are meeting him regularly.

But don’t you think time is saved for the police because they don’t need to come again and again to court for hearings?

You cannot say such things when there is a criminal trial ongoing.

I too as a lawyer cannot sit at home and do video conferencing.

When you go for an operation doctors say that it takes time for the operation and you’ve got to sit for 30 minutes or five hours depending on the operation.

In the same way you cannot say it consumes time for criminal trial as the policeman has to be present in court for cross questioning.

You can give an excuse for the police not being present for bail application or other miscellaneous things or some clarification when the court asks the investigating officer. But you cannot give such liberty to a policeman not to be present during deposition.

In law, there is a special word and that is deposition.

What do you do if a policeman is transferred from one police station to another far off police station — he has to leave all his work and come to court?
In this case, don’t you think it is good for the policeman to depose via video conferencing?

In Delhi all police stations are within a radius of 15 to 20 km. And policemen know well in advance where they have to depose for the prosecution.

Moreover, you don’t need to transfer a policeman in a hurry. If a criminal case is filed let the policeman finish the case in three years.

It is the right of the defence counsel to decide whom to call (in court for cross investigation) and whom not to call.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}