The latest order by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of New Delhi, designating police stations as venues for video conferencing during deposition before courts, has sparked significant protest from the legal fraternity in Delhi. The notification, issued on August 13, 2025, has not only polarized opinion within the justice system but also triggered a large-scale strike and protests by advocates, leading to a temporary hold being placed on the order pending further consultations.
Details of the LG’s Notification
The LG’s notification, issued under Section 265 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, formally designated all police stations across the National Capital Territory of Delhi as “designated places” for police personnel to depose and give evidence via video conferencing. The goal of this move, as stated by the administration, was to enhance efficiency, save time, and reduce logistical challenges by allowing investigating officers and other police witnesses to join court hearings virtually without leaving their duties at the police station.
Under the notification, the entire city’s 179 territorial police stations and specialized branches—including Railways, Metro, Cyber Crime, and others—were brought within this provision.
Why Did Advocates Protest?
Bar Associations across Delhi—including the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations—strongly condemned the notification. The protests were rooted in several major concerns:
- Compromise on Fair Trial: Advocates argued that permitting police witnesses to depose from within police stations, spaces controlled by the executive, seriously undermines the sanctity and transparency of judicial proceedings. There was concern that such an environment raises risks of evidence manipulation and undue influence, as opposed to open courts which are accessible and subject to public scrutiny.
- Erosion of Judicial Independence: Bar bodies insisted that the notification was issued without proper consultation with judicial bodies or the Bar, in violation of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.
- Threat to Accused’s Rights: The notification was also viewed as detrimental to the rights of the accused. The Bar Council of India (BCI) and several lawyer associations warned that allowing police to depose from their own stations could impair the defense’s ability to cross-examine witnesses and jeopardize the integrity of trial proceedings.
- Lack of Stakeholder Consultation: Both the SCAORA and the Bar Council of India criticized the lack of any consultative process prior to the issuance of the notification, disregarding the roles of advocates and the judiciary as critical stakeholders in the justice delivery system.
Course of the Protest
Lawyers across all district courts in Delhi abstained from work for over a week, starting from August 21, 2025. The Bar Associations organized mass demonstrations, including planned marches from court complexes to the LG’s residence, and wore black ribbons as a symbol of protest. They also made formal submissions to the Chief Minister of Delhi and the LG, calling for the immediate withdrawal of the notification.
Notably, this movement saw rare unity among different legal associations—including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, Bar Council of India, and all district and high court bar associations.
Government and Police Response
In response to the growing agitation and near-complete shutdown of court activity, the Delhi Police and the LG’s administration moved to hold implementation of the notification in abeyance. The Delhi Police Commissioner issued a statement clarifying that the notification would not be operationalized until all stakeholders had been adequately consulted, and a meeting was scheduled between the Union Home Minister and Bar representatives to find a resolution.
This development led to the lawyers calling off their strike on August 28, 2025, upon receiving assurances that their concerns would be seriously considered and that the notification was on hold pending further discussions.
Court Intervention
Amidst the standoff, petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the notification. The High Court, on September 3, 2025, deferred hearing on the matter by eight weeks, relying on assurances from Delhi Police that the notification’s operation was on hold. The bench recognized that recent developments—including ongoing consultations—warranted this delay, providing space for dialogue among all branches of government and involved parties.
Legal and Constitutional Context
The legal basis for the notification is Section 265 of the BNSS, which permits state governments to allow witness testimony by audio-video electronic means at any government-notified place. While intended to modernize and expedite judicial processes, the implementation design, especially the selection of police stations as venues, has been criticized for failing to uphold the open and adversarial ethos of criminal trials.
Advocates emphasize that judicial evidence must remain a public act, not one at risk of executive control, emphasizing the need for any technological upgrades to be balanced against the foundational guarantees of transparency, open court principle, and access to justice.
What Happens Next?
As of now, the LG’s order remains suspended. The Union Home Ministry’s further consultations and possible recommendations from the Bar are awaited. The High Court’s adjournment signals that the final legal and administrative resolution will likely follow prolonged debate and stakeholder engagement, possibly setting a precedent for the future intersection of technological adoption and procedural fairness in Indian courtrooms.
In conclusion, the LG’s recent order on video conferencing for police testimony from police stations sharply divided Delhi’s legal and administrative communities, with advocates forcefully protesting on grounds of judicial independence and fair trial. With legal challenges pending and government reconsideration underway, the controversy has highlighted crucial sensitivities in balancing efficiency and justice in a digital era.