After the Delhi police commissioner stated that lieutenant governor VK Saxena’s notification, which permits police officers to testify in court by video conference from designated police stations, will only be implemented following consultation with all parties involved, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) called off its strike on Thursday. The development, according to DHCBA officials, came after a meeting with the union home ministry, when it was discussed and agreed that Amit Shah, the union home minister, will meet with Bar representatives to address and address their concerns over the notification.
In response to the concerns expressed by members of the Bar, Delhi Police Commissioner Satish Golcha said in a statement that “the operation of the said notification on the ground would be carried out after hearing all stakeholders.”
In accordance with the draft model regulations of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the notification dated August 13 designated all 226 police stations in the Capital as video-conferencing centres for officers to give evidence in order to “improve efficiency and save time.”
For nearly a week, attorneys have been demonstrating against the notification in Delhi’s district courts, arguing that it “undermines fair trial standards” and may result in “manipulation of evidence” by the police. Attorneys boycotted Tuesday and Wednesday’s proceedings and staged a sit-in outside court complexes on Monday, claiming the action encourages evidence tampering and undermines trial fairness.
Last Friday, the DHCBA denounced the directive. The notification was deemed a danger to judicial independence by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Bar Council of India warned that such testimony erodes judicial control over processes and raises the possibility of procedural errors in a letter to Saxena on Monday, requesting its immediate withdrawal.
HT previously reported on how these strikes are in direct opposition to several Supreme Court decisions that declare lawyer strikes to be unlawful and unethical, impeding justice and infringing litigants’ access to the legal system.