New Delhi [India], August 26 : A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court challenging a notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi that designates all police stations in the capital as venues for deposition of police officers through video conferencing. The matter is likely to be mentioned before the Court tomorrow.
The petition has been moved by Advocate Kapil Madan, who has assailed the legality, validity, and constitutional propriety of the notification, contending that it is "wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and unconstitutional".
The legal challenge targets a notification dated 13 August 2025, issued by the Home (General) Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor.
This notification designates police stations as official venues for the deposition of police personnel in criminal proceedings. The petition argues that such a move undermines the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 by allowing prosecution witnesses--specifically police officials--to testify from within their own precincts.
Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petition raises multiple constitutional and legal objections.
First, it claims a violation of the right to a fair trial, asserting that allowing police officers to depose from their own stations compromises neutrality, encourages selective referencing of records, and fosters a perception of bias.
Second, it points to arbitrary classification under Article 14, arguing that the notification unfairly privileges police witnesses by allowing them to testify from their workplaces, while civilian witnesses must appear in court.
Third, the petition invokes Article 50, which mandates separation of powers, contending that the recording of evidence is a judicial function and that the Executive has overstepped its authority by designating police stations as deposition centers.
Fourth, it argues that the notification is ultra vires the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, particularly Section 308, which requires evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused and under judicial supervision.
Fifth, the plea highlights a contravention of the Delhi High Court Video Conferencing Rules of 2020 and 2025, which permit virtual testimony only from neutral and authorised venues at the court's discretion. Police stations, the petition asserts, are inherently partisan.
Sixth, it cites judicial precedent from the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), which allowed video conferencing but emphasised safeguards such as a neutral venue safeguard that the current notification allegedly ignores.
The petition warns of the risk of witness tampering and prejudice against the accused, arguing that depositions from police stations could lead to coached testimony and hinder proper confrontation with evidence, thereby skewing the trial in favour of the prosecution.
The plea submitted that the notification, if allowed to stand, would irreparably damage the fairness of criminal trials in Delhi and diminish public trust in the justice system. The petitioner has requested the Court to quash the notification and direct that police depositions continue only under judicial supervision in court settings.
The matter is expected to be mentioned before the Delhi High Court tomorrow for urgent listing.