Delhi LG’s Virtual Testimony Notification Sparks Debate : The recent notification issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi permitting police officers to testify virtually from their designated police stations has ignited a major debate in India’s legal community. While the move aims to leverage technology for speedy justice, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and leading bar associations have expressed grave concerns over its impact on the rights of the accused, transparency in trials, and the judicial process itself.
What the Delhi LG’s Notification States
Under the notification issued in accordance with Section 265 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 226 police stations in Delhi have been designated as official locations from where police officers can testify and present evidence before courts through video conferencing.
Section 265(3) of the BNSS specifically empowers the state government to notify any place as a location where witnesses can be examined via electronic audio-video means. This provision was introduced to reduce the burden on law enforcement, cut down on adjournments, and speed up trials.
Why the Bar Council of India Opposes the Move
The BCI has strongly objected to the notification, warning that while technology is vital in modernizing the justice system, this step could endanger fair trial principles. In its official statement, the BCI highlighted three major risks:
Fair Hearing at Risk – Testifying from police stations, controlled by the investigating agency, could compromise the credibility of testimony and intimidate witnesses.
Cross-Examination Challenges – Lawyers rely on spontaneous answers, body language, and in-person interaction. Video conferencing may reduce the effectiveness of cross-examination.
Judicial Oversight Weakened – Evidence outside the courtroom reduces the presiding judge’s ability to monitor proceedings, increasing the risk of procedural irregularities.
The Council also criticized the government for issuing such an important notification without consulting the BCI or judiciary, despite the BCI being a statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Broader Opposition from Legal Fraternity
It is not just the BCI that has raised objections. Other prominent bodies such as:
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)
Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA)
Coordination Committee of Bar Associations of Delhi’s District Courts
have also opposed the move, warning that it undermines the spirit of open courts and could negatively affect the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Bigger Picture: Technology vs. Fair Trial
Supporters of the move argue that the use of virtual testimony could:
Reduce unnecessary delays caused by the unavailability of police officers.
Prevent disruption of law-and-order duties.
Save costs and time for the judicial system.
However, critics caution that the principle of open justice must not be compromised. Courts are not just about recording statements—they are about observing truthfulness, demeanor, and ensuring equal opportunity for both prosecution and defense.
BCI’s Final Stand
While the BCI reaffirmed its commitment to technological modernization, it stressed that police evidence must only be recorded in physical courtrooms. The Council has demanded the immediate withdrawal of the notification and has called for a joint consultation among the bar, judiciary, and government before making such far-reaching changes in criminal trial procedures.
The Delhi LG’s notification has opened a critical debate on balancing technology-driven efficiency with constitutional guarantees of a fair trial. With strong resistance from the BCI and other legal associations, the matter is likely to escalate into a larger legal and policy discussion in the days to come. The outcome will shape not just Delhi’s judicial practices but may also set a precedent for other states in India.
