'In a courtroom, the judge can directly assess the witness's demeanour, which is crucial'
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has strongly condemned the August 13, 2025 notification issued by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, which designates police stations as venues for recording police depositions via video conferencing.
In a resolution passed on August 27, the Association warned that the order undermines judicial independence, compromises the fairness of cross-examinations, and erodes public faith in the justice delivery system.
According to SCAORA, courts are open forums accessible to litigants, advocates, and citizens, whereas police stations are restricted executive spaces.
Shifting witness depositions to police-controlled environments, they argue, risks curating evidence, dilutes the intensity of cross-examination, and prevents judges from assessing the demeanour of witnesses -- an essential element of justice.
The Association also expressed regret that the order was issued without consulting either the judiciary or the Bar, calling it a blow to institutional balance.
As part of a wider protest, Bar associations across Delhi had called for abstinence from work in all district courts and demonstrations before the lieutenant governor's house. However, following sustained agitation, the Union home ministry intervened: It was officially conveyed that Home Minister Amit Shah would personally meet Bar representatives 'with an open mind' to address their concerns, according to a press note issued by the New Delhi Bar Association.
The Delhi police commissioner also clarified that the notification would not be enforced until all stakeholders were heard. In light of this written assurance, the Bar has suspended its protests pending the outcome of talks.
In this interview with Prasanna D Zore/Rediff, SCAORA Secretary Vipin Nair explains why the order is fraught with risks, how it could weaken judicial credibility, and why stakeholder consultation is critical.
This interview was conducted before the Union government's assurance, when lawyers were still in active agitation against the LG's order.
Why does allowing police stations to serve as venues for recording depositions undermine the independence and credibility of the judicial process?
The simple reason is that there are cardinal rules of cross-examination prescribed by the law of evidence.
The witness has to be in court, and ideally that means physical presence. The moment 'in court' is transcribed into a video conference it dilutes the intensity of cross-examination.
Suppose you are confronting a prosecution witness -- say, a police officer -- about infractions during an arrest: when it was made, what documents were available, what exactly was done.
In a courtroom, the judge can directly assess the witness's demeanour, which is crucial.
That advantage is completely lost when the officer testifies from his own station. He may consult materials not available in court, seek assistance from colleagues, or otherwise tailor his replies. This compromises the very purity of cross-examination.
There is also a counterpoint, though.
Once a police officer leaves the station and spends the whole day in court, there is a law-and-order issue because stations are understaffed. There should be a balance. Either court appearances should be made time-bound so the officer is free by a certain hour, or multiple cases can be scheduled for the same day.
These are housekeeping issues that both the Bar and the executive should decide together.
How might the controlled environment of a police station influence or compromise the authenticity and fairness of evidence collection, even if done via video conferencing?
Exactly -- because it places the witness in an artificial zone not controlled by the judge. The judge has to see the demeanour of the witness.
Suppose the witness lies -- there are human traits the judge can catch, which are completely lost in the electronic medium. This is just one illustration, but there are many such risks.
The SCAORA resolution mentions that courts are open forums while police stations are restricted spaces. How does this difference affect transparency and public confidence in justice delivery?
Absolutely. Take custodial death cases (or cases of jail torture). A perfectly fine undertrial or suspect walks into a police station and comes out crippled. How does that happen? (It happens) because a police station is a restricted space. It is not to say this happens everywhere, but even one such instance colours the entire scheme. That is why courts, being open forums, are fundamentally different.
What risks arise when such a notification is issued without consultation with the judiciary or the Bar? And what does this say about institutional balance in the justice system?
This whole situation could have been avoided if they had called a joint meeting of all stakeholders -- especially the local trial Bar, because they are directly and proximately affected.
At the Supreme Court level we are not, since no trials happen here, but eventually these cases land up before us. The trial court lawyers are the most important stakeholders; they should have been consulted.
Supporters argue that video conferencing from police stations is only a logistical convenience. Why do you believe it goes beyond logistics?
Efficiency cannot override judicial independence.
I already explained how it affects cross-examination and witness demeanour. There must be a counter-narrative -- yes, police time is wasted in courts, and yes, manpower is limited. But solutions should be worked out in consultation, not by shifting the process into police stations.
© 2025