New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned the fairness of an August 13 notification by the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG), which designated police stations as official sites for recording police statements in criminal trials. The Court asked the Centre to explain the rationale behind this choice by December 10.
Bench Flags Fair Trial Concerns
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the concerns raised against the notification had merit. The Court noted that allowing police officers to testify from police stations might compromise the fairness of criminal trials.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, the Court remarked: “You have the right to identify a designated place, no difficulty in that. We are not challenging your powers. But why police stations? Why not a neutral location? Statements are usually made in front of the accused to ensure fairness and the ability to rebut. This notification, prima facie, compromises the very concept of a fair trial.”
Lawyers’ Strike and Notification Backlash
The August 13 notification permitted police personnel to testify via video conferencing from police stations. Lawyers in Delhi protested, striking from August 22. Following the resistance, implementation was paused on August 28. On September 7, the Delhi Police clarified that officers would again appear physically in trial courts to give evidence.
Petitioner Highlights Ongoing Confusion
During the hearing, petitioner Raj Gaurav stated that withdrawal of the notification would address his grievance. Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked if the order was being implemented. The petitioner replied that it was only partially followed, causing confusion due to repeated circulars.
Justice Gedela questioned, “What is partially being acted upon? How is it discriminatory? You must demonstrate why the notification should be struck down.”
The petitioner argued that the LG notification could create chaos and dilute High Court oversight under BNSS Sections 265 and 266. He warned it might lead to coercion, tutoring, or fabrication of evidence, turning trials into mere formalities and violating Article 21 of the Constitution.
Court Seeks Government Explanation
The Bench directed ASG Sharma to return with a clear explanation for choosing police stations as designated sites for testimony. It refrained from issuing formal notice but emphasized that the government must ensure fair trial standards.
“Perhaps a lot of churning is needed at your end, not because lawyers are agitated, but because the State must ensure fair trial,” the Court noted. ASG Sharma assured the Bench: “We will come back on this.”
The hearing was adjourned to December 10, coinciding with another similar petition. The Bench instructed, “You have three months to think. Please convey.”
