Delhi’s Legal Storm: The Controversy Over Police Evidence from Police Stations and the Fight for Judicial Fairness

August 29, 2025 | By Adv Adarsh Varma (Legalmen)

Imagine a courtroom where the scales of justice are meant to balance truth and fairness. Now picture a scenario where police officers, key witnesses in criminal trials, testify not from the neutral ground of a courtroom but from the very police stations where they hold authority. This isn’t just hypothetical, it’s the heart of a brewing controversy in Delhi that has ignited protests, strikes, and a fierce debate about the sanctity of justice. 

On August 13, 2025, Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor (LG) Vinai Kumar Saxena issued a notification that has sent shockwaves through the legal community, prompting questions about fair trials, judicial independence, and the delicate balance of power in India’s capital. Here’s an in-depth look at this unfolding saga, its implications for the public, and how we might navigate a path forward.

The Spark: What’s the Notification About?

On August 13, 2025, LG Saxena issued a notification under Sections 265 and 266 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, designating video conferencing rooms in all 226 Delhi police stations as “official venues” for police officers to record evidence and testify in criminal trials via video conferencing. The stated intent? To streamline judicial processes by reducing the need for police personnel to physically appear in court, potentially saving time and resources in Delhi’s overburdened justice system.

The notification, approved by the LG’s office, covers territorial police stations and specialized units like Railways, Metro, Cyber, and the Economic Offences Wing. It leverages the BNSS’s provisions allowing state governments to designate specific locations for virtual evidence recording, a nod to modernizing trials with technology. But what seemed like a pragmatic step forward has been met with fierce resistance, with lawyers across Delhi express dissatisfaction over what they see as a direct assault on the principles of justice.

Why the Outrage? Lawyers Take to the Streets

The legal community’s response was swift and resolute. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Coordination Committee of All District Court Bar Associations of Delhi condemned the notification as “arbitrary, unlawful, and against the principles of natural justice.” Here’s why this move has sparked such intense opposition:

Threat to Fair Trials: Senior advocate Rebecca M. John, a prominent voice in criminal law, argued that allowing police officers to testify from police station's environment they control undermines the right to a fair trial. Cross-examination, a cornerstone of criminal defense, relies on a neutral setting to ensure witnesses aren’t influenced or coached. “As a defense lawyer, I won’t know if a policeman under cross questioning is being prompted by someone behind his computer screen,” John stated, echoing concerns about potential manipulation.

Judicial Independence at Stake: The SCBA and BCI have warned that the notification threatens judicial independence by allowing evidence to be recorded outside the court’s oversight. The BCI emphasized that “evidence can only be recorded in the court in the physical presence of the witness” to ensure transparency and fairness. Police stations, as controlled environments, risk creating perceptions of bias, especially since police are often the prosecuting authority in criminal cases.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kapil Madan in the Delhi High Court challenges the notification’s legality, arguing it violates Article 14 (equality before the law) by unfairly privileging police witnesses over civilians, Article 21 (right to a fair trial), and Article 50 (separation of powers). The PIL also contends that the notification contravenes the BNSS’s Section 308, which mandates evidence recording in the presence of the accused or their lawyer, and the Delhi High Court’s Video Conferencing Rules, which require neutral venues.

Lack of Consultation: The BCI expressed dismay at not being consulted before the notification’s issuance, a sentiment echoed by bar associations. This lack of stakeholder engagement has fueled perceptions of unilateral overreach by the LG, a recurring theme in Delhi’s governance battles.

The legal fraternity’s response has been nothing short of a resistance. On August 22 and 23, 2025, all district courts in Delhi shut down as lawyers, led by the Coordination Committee, went on a complete strike, abstaining from both physical and virtual court appearances. By August 26, protests escalated with demonstrations outside court complexes, including Rouse Avenue Court, with advocates brandishing placards reading “Kala Kanoon Wapas Lo” (Take this black law back). The DHCBA called for members to wear black ribbons in court as a symbolic protest, a gesture that continued through August 27. The strike extended into its fifth day by August 27, with lawyers vowing to continue until the notification is withdrawn.

A Step Forward: Notification Put on Hold

In a significant development, on August 28, 2025, the Delhi Police announced that the notification’s implementation would be held in abeyance pending consultations with stakeholders. Union Home Minister Sh. Amit Shah agreed to meet bar association representatives to address their concerns, a move signaling potential de-escalation. This pause came after relentless pressure from the legal community, including representations to the LG, Chief Minister, and central government officials. A PIL challenging the notification is slated for hearing in the Delhi High Court on September 3, 2025, before Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, setting the stage for a judicial review.

The Bigger Picture: Delhi’s Governance Tug of War

This controversy isn’t just about police stations or video conferencing, it’s a microcosm of Delhi’s ongoing governance crisis. The National Capital Territory (NCT) operates under a unique constitutional framework (Article 239AA), where the LG, appointed by the central government, wields significant authority over reserved subjects like police, public order, and land. This has long pitted the LG against the elected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government, led by Chief Minister Sh. Arvind Kejriwal (and briefly Sh.Rekha Gupta in 2025).

The notification is seen by critics as another instance of the LG overstepping his constitutional bounds, bypassing the elected government and judicial processes. The Supreme Court’s 2018 and 2023 rulings clarified that the Delhi government has control over services (except reserved subjects), yet central government amendments in 2021 and 2023 have bolstered the LG’s powers, fueling tensions. The legal community’s outrage is amplified by this context, viewing the notification as a power grab that encroaches on judicial autonomy.

Public Implications: Why This Matters to You

For the average citizen, this controversy might seem like a legal spat, but its implications are profound:

Erosion of Trust in Justice: If police can testify from their own stations, public confidence in the fairness of criminal trials could wane. The perception of bias, whether real or imagined, could undermine convictions or acquittals, affecting victims, accused persons, and society at large.

Unequal Treatment: The PIL highlights that the notification creates an unfair advantage for police witnesses, who can testify from their workplace, while civilians must appear in court. This disparity raises questions about equality before the law.

Delays in Justice: While the LG’s intent was to expedite trials, the legal community argues that compromised evidence collection could lead to more appeals and delays, clogging an already strained system.

Broader Governance Concerns: The controversy underscores the friction between appointed and elected authorities in Delhi, which often stalls governance and affects public services.

A Path Forward: Solutions to Bridge the Divide

Resolving this crisis requires balancing technological innovation with the principles of justice. Here are some thoughtful solutions to address the issue:

Neutral Venues for Virtual Testimony: Instead of police stations, designate neutral locations like court annexes or government offices for video conferencing. This preserves judicial oversight and addresses concerns about bias. The Delhi High Court’s Video Conferencing Rules already emphasize neutral venues, which could be expanded.

Stakeholder Consultation: The BCI’s call for collaborative discussion is critical. The LG, judiciary, bar associations, and elected government should form a committee to draft guidelines for virtual evidence recording, ensuring transparency and fairness.

Technological Safeguards: Implement strict protocols for virtual depositions, such as real time monitoring by judicial officers, mandatory recording of sessions, and secure platforms to prevent tampering. These measures could mitigate concerns about manipulation.

Judicial Oversight: Mandate that all virtual testimonies occur under a magistrate’s supervision, either physically or via secure video link, to ensure compliance with BNSS Section 308 and protect the accused’s rights.

Pilot Program and Review: Test the virtual deposition system in a controlled setting (e.g., a few courts) before citywide implementation. A review mechanism involving judges and lawyers could assess its impact on trial fairness.

Clarify LG’s Powers: The broader governance tussle in Delhi needs resolution. The central government and judiciary should work toward a clearer delineation of the LG’s discretionary powers to prevent future conflicts that spill into public policy.

Critical Reflection: Questioning the Narrative

While the LG’s notification is framed as a modernization effort however the push for efficiency cannot override the right to a fair trial, a principle enshrined in India’s Constitution and criminal jurisprudence. The lack of consultation with key stakeholders like the BCI and elected government raises red flags.

Closure: A Call for Justice and Dialogue

The Delhi LG’s notification has exposed fault lines in the city’s justice and governance systems, uniting lawyers in a rare show of solidarity. The decision to put the notification on hold and engage with bar representatives is a step in the right direction, but September 3, 2025, court hearing will be pivotal. For the public, this is a reminder that justice isn’t just about courtrooms, it’s about ensuring every voice, especially the accused’s, is heard fairly.

We invite you, our readers, to weigh in. Do you believe virtual depositions can coexist with fair trials? How can Delhi resolve its governance tug of war? Share your thoughts in the comments, and stay tuned for updates on this critical issue. Let’s advocate for a justice system that embraces technology without sacrificing fairness.

Stay informed, stay engaged, and let’s keep the conversation going.