Loopholes In DELHI's LGs' Order on Designated Centres

 

The Delhi LG issued an order on August 13, 2025, designating all police stations in Delhi as designated centers for police testimony via video conferencing, allowing officers to depose from their stations instead of physically attending court. This move, intended to increase efficiency and free up manpower, has been challenged in the Delhi High Court and by various bar associations due to concerns about compromising the fairness of cross-examination, potential bias, and the usurpation of judicial power. The High Court has sought an explanation from the Centre and is currently reviewing the matter. 

Note : The LG's Order on notifying Police Stations as Designated Centres for testimony via Video Conferencing has been passes by using BNSS Section 265(3) and BNSS Section 266 (2) which are itself contradictory. 

Well we will stick only to the the executive order in question. 

Now we will see how this executive order is Unconstitutional. 

This executive order is violating the following points :

1. Golden Triangle Doctrine (Maneka Gandhi Case 1978) 

2. Article 13 hence it's Judicial Review is needed.

3. Article 50 - Directive Principles of State Policy 

4. Judges' Rights to deliver effective Justice

Model Argument Framework

Petition Points / Arguments

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Golden Triangle Doctrine

a) Article 14 – Equality Before Law

• LG का order prosecution को executive-controlled premises से 

testimony देने की अनुमति देता है, जबकि accused को neutral platform नहीं मिलता।

• इससे accused और prosecution के बीच level playing field disturb होता है।
• Classification arbitrary है और intelligible differentia का rational nexus नहीं दिखता।

b) Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Defense counsel cross-examination और questioning में 

अपनी full freedom of expression नहीं इस्तेमाल कर पाएगा क्योंकि पुलिस अपने ही premises में बने Video Conferencing Centres से गवाही देगी । ये defense counsel की psychology को influence करने के लिए काफ़ी है |

• Psychological pressure और constrained environment से effective participation hinder होगी ।

c) Article 21 – Right to Life and Fair Trial

• Fair trial तभी संभव है जब judge और parties दोनों neutral और equal footing पर हों। जब accused और police को equal platform नहीं दिए जा रहे हैं तो fair trial बाधित होगा | माननीय Judge accused के body language को read कर सकेंगे मगर पुलिस की बॉडी language को नहीं क्योंकि वो तो screen पर होगा |

• LG का order neutrality और fairness को compromise कर रहा है, जिससे accused के Article 21 rights प्रभावित हो रहे हैं।

LG का order Golden Triangle Doctrine (Art. 14, 19, 21) का clear violation करता है। Hence it fails to meet the standard of being just, fair and reasonable in its procedures and substantive provisions. 

अतः यह order void और unconstitutional है।

Judicial Review – Article 13

• Constitution की Article 13 के अनुसार, कोई भी executive order या statutory notification fundamental rights को abridge नहीं कर सकता।

• If it does so then, it has to face the Judicial Review where H'ble SC under Article 32 and H'ble HCs' under Article 226 have the complete authority to struck it down and make it null & void. 
• We have shown that this executive order is violating the Fundamental Rights as above and this paves the way for its Judicial Review. 

Violation of Article 50 in Constitution of India

• Separation of judiciary from executive

                The State shall take steps to separate the

                 judiciary from the executive in the public 

                 services of the State.

Though it is one of the Directives of the State Policy and hence unjustifiable but at the same time it is a fundamental guideline that the state should follow to ensure judicial independence and a balanced, democratic system. 

Judicial Wisdom / Judge’s Rights’ Angle

• Judge का भी absolute right है कि वह justice effectively deliver कर सके।
• Equal platforms mandatory होने चाहिए ताकि judge witness के demeanor, 

body language, hesitation, और credibility properly assess कर सके।

• Virtual testimony या executive-controlled testimony judge की judicial 

perception और wisdom को affect करती है।

• Judge के court room में जब गवाह मौजूद होते हैं तो जज का influence उन पर पड़ता है | जब accused court room में होगा तो उस पर Judge का influence 100% होगा मगर पुलिस पर प्रभाव कम पड़ेगा क्योंकि पुलिस तो स्क्रीन पर होगी और साथ ही अपने ही घर (police station) में होगी तो वो naturally खुद को powerful महसूस करेगी और इसलिए जज का उसके उपर influence कम होगा accused के respect में |
• और ये judgment को भी प्रभावित करेगा |

Exceptions: Exceptional circumstances में video testimony allow हो 

सकती है (जैसे Praful Desai case), लेकिन यह general rule नहीं बन सकता।

     This fact is supported by the Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. 

Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 

Evidence में दो चीज़ें आती हैं:

• Oral Evidence → गवाह द्वारा कही गई बातें, जिन्हें कोर्ट अपनी observation से judge करता है।

• Documentary Evidence → documents, electronic records आदि।
• साथ ही, definition of “Court may consider” में ये साफ है कि जज को witness के demeanor (आचरण) observe करने का अधिकार है। 

Demeanor = body language, hesitation, confidence, etc.

अब violation कहाँ है?

• अगर पुलिस अपने executive-controlled station से virtual testimony देगी, तो जज गवाह की demeanor को properly observe नहीं कर पाएगा।
• यानी Evidence Act, Section 3 का spirit violate होगा क्योंकि oral evidence को assess करने का मूल तरीका ही कमजोर हो गया।
• Court के पास जो “live perception” का tool है, वो neutral नहीं रहेगा।

Government ka logic weak है – 

• "police ka samay बचेगा" एक administrative convenience है। 
• लेकिन Right to Liberty एक Fundamental Right है। जिसे police की Convenience के नाम में कमज़ोर नहीं किया जा सकता है |

Administrative Convenience Cannot Override Fundamental Rights. 

Statutory Rights बनाम Fundamental Rights – 

Statutory law (जैसे CrPC, Evidence Act, या कोई police-friendly provision) 

कभी भी fundamental rights से ऊपर नहीं हो सकता। 

SC ने कई बार कहा है कि “fundamental rights are inalienable” और convenience of state machinery (जैसे police ka time बचाना) constitutional liberties का substitute नहीं हो सकता।

Prayer / Relief Sought

• LG का order तुरंत stay या strike down किया जाए।
• Testimony की जगह neutral judicial platform से सुनिश्चित हो।
• Exceptional circumstances में video testimony की अनुमति सिर्फ judicial discretion पर हो।

The IAS and Judicial Aspirants should remember that if any law or order abridges the Fundamental Right(s) then under Article 13, it has to face the Judicial Review. 

Even if We don't mention the Golden Triangle Doctrine as introduced in Maneka Gandhi Case 1978 then also this executive order has to face the Artcile 13 test as it violates the Fundamental Rights viz. Article 14, 19 and 21. 

And this is the main reason that we have not mentioned here any Judicial Precedents except the Maneka Gandhi Case. 

Note : इस draft में तीनों angles – 

• fundamental rights violation, 
• judicial review & 
• judicial wisdom – 

perfectly integrated हैं।

This Lecture has been structured for –

• IAS, 
• PCS, 
• Judicial Services Aspirants & 
• for general awareness. 

Disclaimer:

This blog is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or official opinion. Readers should verify information independently and consult professionals for specific legal concerns.