Why did LG designate police stations for recording police statements? Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday raised questions about the fairness of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor's (LG) August 13 notification that designated police stations as places for recording the statements of police officials during criminal trials [Raj Gaurav v. Union of India and ors].

The Court orally observed that there appeared to be some force in concerns that such a move may compromise fairness during criminal trials.

A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made the observation while hearing a petition filed by a lawyer named Raj Gaurav, who challenged the August 13 notification.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, the Court said,

"You (State) have the right to identify designated place, no difficulty in that. We are not challenging your powers to designate a place. But why police stations? That's the only question. Why to designate place at the police station? You could designate a place neutral to your seat. Why are statements (usually) made in front of accused? Because it is fair, so that he knows and can rebut...You have to maintain neutrality. Conducting trial is also your responsibility. We have to create an environment for fair trial. This (August 13 notification) perhaps, prima facie, compromises the very concept of fair trial."

The controversial August 13 notification designated police stations as places from where police personnel are allowed to testify during criminal trials through video conferencing.

It drew swift and strong resistance from lawyers in Delhi, who went on strike from August 22 onwards.

The protests prompted the authorities to pause the implementation of the notification on August 28 and on September 7, the Delhi Police issued a circular stating that its officers would appear physically before trial courts for deposition and evidence.

Today, the petitioner told the High Court that if the authorities are willing to withdraw the August 13 notification, his prayer would be met.

"Is it being acted upon at the moment?" the Chief Justice asked, in turn.

"Partially, it has been acted upon. Time and again circulars were issued by Delhi Police. After there was uproar on ground, it was withdrawn," the petitioner replied.

"What is partially being acted upon? How is it discriminatory? You have to demonstrate to us. You are asking to strike down a notification," Justice Gedela said.

"It creates a chaotic situation every time a new notification is brought and withdrawn. The LG notification is not withdrawn. The larger issue of my PIL is with respect to BNSS Sections 265, 266. It should be in consultation of HC. Or else it would dilute powers," argued the petitioner.

In his plea, Gaurav urged the Court to quash the LG's August 13 notification and also issue directions so that any changes in the procedure for recording evidence through video conferencing is allowed to be made only after consultation with the Delhi High Court and other stakeholders.

The plea added that allowing police officials to stay back in police stations and testify through video conferencing could heighten the risk of coercion, tutoring and fabrication of evidence, thereby transforming criminal trials into a mere formality in violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"It dilutes transparency of the trial. If I ask a crucial question, he (police officer being cross-examined) can switch off the video," the petitioner told the Court today.

The Court eventually asked ASG Sharma to come back with a response on the reasons why police stations were designated as the place for recording the statements of police.

It declined to formally issue notice in the matter, but asked the ASG to to look into the queries raised by the Court.

"Perhaps a lot of churning is needed at your end, not because they (lawyers) are agitated (but because) you (State) have to ensure fair trial," the Court said.

"We will come back on this," ASG Sharma assured the Court.

The Court proceeded to adjourn the case till December 10, when a similar petition is slated to be heard next.

"You have three months to think. Please convey," the Court said, addressing the ASG.

[Live Coverage]