When justice goes virtual, efficiency rises, but so do the questions.
INTRODUCTION
The technological development in India is rising at a rapid rate, from the filing of e-FIRs to the hybridisation of court sessions, the Indian justice system has transformed towards a more hi-tech and efficient system of dispensing justice. This shift may have been propelled by the urgency of the pandemic, but has now been formalised through the means of legal frameworks like Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023[1], which provides a legal backing for such electronic procedures. Although this is an efficient and necessary move towards development, it raises concerns regarding procedural fairness, protection of natural justice, and transparency.
The issue relating to such a debate has gained attention in Delhi, where the Lieutenant Governor has issued a notification allowing police officers to testify by means of video conferencing directly from their respective police stations. While such a notification is meant to ensure administrative ease, it has been heavily objected to by the Bar association, questioning its credibility and accountability towards fairness and justice.[2]
This blog aims to explore this issue while providing suggestive measures for achieving a balanced approach towards digitisation and fairness.
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR’S ORDER
On 12 August 2025, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi notified that all 226 police stations in the city, including units like the Crime Branch and Economic Offences Wing, are designated places for video depositions.[3] The reason for such notification was stated as an initiative towards reducing the burden of police officers.[4] Reportedly, 2000 such officers appear before the court daily, often spending considerable time waiting or travelling.[5]
By allowing police officers to testify remotely, i.e., by means of video conferencing, the order aims to save time and promote efficient growth in the administrative system.
The scrutinising question, however, remains whether a police station serves as an apt setting for such proceedings.
BACKLASH FROM THE DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION
The Bar Association of Delhi has opposed the notification and demanded its withdrawal within 48 hours, and non-compliance with the same has resulted in protests against such “anti-lawyer”, “anti-justice” order.[6] Their main issue with the video deposition through the police station is regarding the hindrance it can cause to the right to a fair trial and principles of natural justice.[7]. Further, Advocate Anil Basoya, secretary general of the coordination committee, opposed the pointing out its impracticality and argued that a police station is not a neutral setting, which is a core requirement for cross-examination; rather, it is an environment where police officers can easily influence the witnesses, which cannot be ignored while considering the fairness of the trial and transparency.[8] The committee described the order as being contrary to public interest and potentially detrimental to the delivery of justice.[9]
LEGAL FOUNDATION
The right to a fair trial has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.[10] On the other hand, according to section 331 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), it is required that the evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused or their advocates, while sections 530 and 193(3)(i) allow electronic examination of the witness at places notified by the State Government as the designated places.[11]
The Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules 2025 expressly state that the depositions should take place at “trusted sites” that satisfy neutrality and technological standards.[12] Whether police stations can be considered as a trusted or neutral site is a matter that sparks debates and requires interpretation.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT AND TECHNOLOGY
The apex court has, in the foundational case of State of Maharashtra v Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), held that a witness’s “presence” could be established by means of video conferencing without compromising the right to a fair trial.[13] However, this ruling arose in an exceptional and unusual situation involving a foreign medical expert who was unable to be physically present. Importantly, the judgment clarified that the use of such means is not supposed for the sake of convenience but rather as an aid in cases of impossibility or impracticality in being physically present. The judgment also emphasised that courts must maintain strict safeguards to preserve the quality and integrity of evidence when digital methods are utilised.[14]
Even in the international landscape, the European Court of Human Rights has also granted only conditional approval to the use of means like videoconferencing; it emphasised that such means shall not cause disadvantage to the defence or hinder the fairness of the trial. The necessity and proportionality in the use of digital means in the court are vital to a just and fair judicial system.[15] Thus, judicial precedents both permits as well as limits the digital transformation, making it explicitly clear that justice can be digital but within boundaries defined by fairness and due procedure established by courts.
IMPORTANCE OF THE HUMAN ELEMENT
Trials depend not only on the verbal testimony, but also account for the non-verbal cues, such as behaviour, body language, tone, and even hesitation, to assess the cross-examiner in conducting a fair and transparent questioning. Technical limitations, such as poor connectivity, lighting, or camera angles, can deprive the examiner of such cues.[16]
Further, testimony from within the police station raises questions of reliability, as it could have been extracted by means of pressure. The officers may not testify openly due to the presence of a supervisor or colleague, which could indirectly affect the independence of their testimony.[17] Virtual proceedings may impact and limit the lawyer-client confidentiality in consultations, raising concerns about effective legal representation. Judges can face challenges regarding the assessment of a witness’s credibility through screens, which may hamper the entire decision-making process.[18]
EFFICIENCY OVER FAIRNESS?
Given the current situation of large backlogs within the Indian justice system, there is no doubt about the need for efficiency in the judicial process. Video deposition may help the police by reducing their travel and waiting time spent in court, sparing them time for investigation and crime prevention.[19] However, the fairness in the judicial system remains central. If efficiency comes at the cost of fairness, it can undermine public confidence in the justice system.[20]
International experience suggests that technology should be used for assistance, but it must be balanced by measures that safeguard transparency, independence, and due process.[21]
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The Delhi Bars’ backlash to the LG’s order allowing police video deposition from their respective stations highlights the challenge as the Indian judicial system is transforming digitally. While technological tools provide great efficiency, they cannot override the rights of fair trial, independence of witnesses, and natural justice that are protected by the Constitution of India.[22]
To make sure that the technological advancement strengthens rather than undermines justice, the following essential measures are required:
- Pilot programs implementation: start with selected trials in limited cases or jurisdictions, to evaluate impact.[23]
- Judicial Discretion: Allow courts to determine and decide when in-person testimony is necessary.[24]
- Neutral Setting: Using other government facilities instead of a police station as a neutral setting is the core of cross-examining.[25]
- Transparency: Ensuring that video depositions remain openly accessible to the general public and media.[26]
- Periodic Review: Regular evaluation of the system and adapting to protocols as required.[27]
Ultimately, the real test of development and progress of our judicial system depends solely upon how well it balances the promise of digital growth and innovation with the fundamental rights that protect every individual before the law. Delhi’s legal fraternity has exemplified a strong and unifying stand that acts as a reminder that no matter the efficiency, it cannot hinder the fundamental safeguards.
Author(s) Name: Anayza Faiyaz (Barkatullah University, Bhopal)
References:
[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, s 193(3)(i) and 530
[2] TNN, ‘Delhi Bar associations give govt 48 hours to withdraw LG’s video deposition order’ (The Times of India, 19 August 2025) < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-bar-associations-give-govt-48-hours-to-withdraw-lgs-video-deposition-order > accessed 20 August 2025
[3] Express News Service, ‘Now, Delhi cops can depose, present evidence in court via video from police stations’ (The Indian Express, 17 August 2025) < https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/police-can-depose-present-evidence-court-video-police-stations-10185128/ > accessed 20 August 2025
[4] ibid
[5] ibid
[6] UNI, ‘Delhi lawyers oppose LG’s notification allowing Police to testify via video conferencing’ (United News of India, 21 August 2025) < https://www.uniindia.com/delhi-lawyers-oppose-lg-s-notification-allowing-police-to-testify-via-video-conferencing/india/news/3553059.html > accessed 21 August 2025
[7] Ibid
[8] Arnabhit Sur, ‘Bar association opposes cops’ presence via video conference’ Hindustan Times (New Delhi, 20 August 2025) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/bar-association-opposes-cops-presence-via-video-conference-101755629545808.html > accessed 22 August 2025
[9] ibid
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[11] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, n (1)
[12] Delhi High Court, Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules 2025 < https://delhihighcourt.nic.in> accessed 20 August 2025
[13] State of Maharashtra v Dr Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
[14] ibid
[15] Wenner v Germany, App no 62303/13 (ECtHR, 1 September 2016)
[16] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Disconnected: Videoconferencing and Fair Trial Rights’ (2021) <https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/download/1619586831Disconnected%20Videoconferencing%20And%20Fair%20Trial%20Rights.pdf > accessed 20 August 2025
[17] R Meijer, ‘The Use of Videoconferencing at Trial and Its Effects on the Rights of the Defendant’ (2024) 29 Tilburg Law Review < https://tilburglawreview.com/articles/10.5334/tilr.391 > accessed 20 August 2025
[18] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, n (16)
[19] Express New Service, n (3)
[20] Constitution of India 1950, n (10)
[21] Wenner v Germany, n (15)
[22] Constitution of India 1950
[23] R Meijer, n (17)
[24] State of Maharashtra v Dr Praful B. Desai, n (13)
[25] Delhi High Court Rules, n (12)
[26] Wenner v Germany, n (15)
[27] R Meijer, n (17)
