New Delhi: Lawyers practicing in six district courts here have refused to withdraw their strike, called to protest the Lieutenant Governor’s 13 August notification that allows police stations to set up video conference facilities and record statements of police officials virtually, doing away with the need for them to appear physically in court during a trial.
The decision to continue with the strike came hours after members of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) and representatives of the coordination committee of the All District Bar Associations of Delhi met Chief Minister Rekha Gupta with their grievance over the notification dated 13 August.
According to a statement issued Monday by the New Delhi Bar Association, since the meeting bore no concrete result, all the lawyers’ bodies of the trial courts unanimously agreed to abstain from work on 26 August as well. The statement also said that public prosecutors, lawyers appearing for government enforcement agencies such as CBI and ED, as well as police officials attached to courts, shall not be allowed to appear in courts.
Terming the notification as against public interest, the associations will also stage demonstrations outside various court complexes to educate the public about it.
This happened days after lawyers from Delhi’s six district courts announced a strike to protest the notification issued by L-G V.K. Saxena.
Earlier Monday, the BCD also wrote to CM Rekha Gupta requesting her to urge the home ministry to withdraw the notification.
“Since now strike is continuing and is causing hardship to both the lawyers and the litigants, it is earnestly requested that your good office may persuade the Home Ministry to withdraw the Notification,” read the letter signed by BCD secretary Rajesh Mishra. The Bar Council of Delhi is a statutory disciplinary body for lawyers in the Capital.
Saying that an early action would be appreciated in the matter, the BCD contended that lawyers in Delhi were on a strike since 22 August, and that the entire legal fraternity and litigants were suffering due to them abstaining from work. The letter to the chief minister was written following a meeting between BCD members and Gupta.
BCD chairman, Surya Prakash Khatri, who is also a BJP MLA, along with other senior members had called upon the chief minister Monday morning. Representatives of the All India Bar Association coordination committee were also present during the meeting.
“The CM heard our grievances at length and assured us that she would take up the issue with the L-G and even apprise the Union home ministry about the concerns of the legal community over online deposition of police witnesses. She also shared her viewpoint on embracing technology in recording statements of police officials as it would save their time that gets wasted when they go to courts for their examination during recording of evidence. However, she was told the reasons why online recording of statements of police officials was antithetical to the concept of fair trial,” a BCD member who attended a meeting told ThePrint.
In its letter, BCD urged Gupta to resolve the issue at the earliest, as the ongoing strike can affect lawyers as well as the litigants, who may suffer immensely and be deprived of their valuable legal rights. The BCD letter said lawyers play a pivotal role in dispensing justice and that the 13 August notification adversely affected the rights of lawyers and litigants alike.
The BCD’s letter to the Delhi CM came after the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Delhi High Court Bar associations, issued statements Friday condemning the notification.
Also Read: Luxury cars, big deals & 6-figure fees, evolution of the boardroom lawyer in India
Why are lawyers protesting the notification
Absence of fair trial will lead to wrongful convictions, and compromise fairness and overall process of collecting evidence. These are the concerns cited by lawyers from Delhi’s district courts, including Saket, Patiala, Tis Hazari and Karkardooma, among others, to oppose the notification.
The 13 August notification has attracted the ire of the legal fraternity, which in its statement released Wednesday, had expressed concerns like a fundamental change was being brought about to the procedure of trial, without consulting the Bar, the judiciary or other key stakeholders.
These remarks came in the form of a representation addressed to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Delhi CM Rekha Gupta and Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, following a meeting held Tuesday of the coordination committee of All District Bar Associations of Delhi at the Rouse Avenue district court in Delhi. They unanimously released a statement opposing the notification, saying strong opposition and agitation will follow if the notification was not withdrawn within 48 hours.
The notification was termed as anti-lawyer, anti-justice and against public interests by the coordination committee.
According to the notification, which came out last week, all 226 police stations in Delhi were designated as venues from which police personnel could present their evidence and depose before courts through video-conferencing.
“While the intention of expediting proceedings has been cited, the said measure is neither practical nor lawful, and it strikes at the very root of fair trial principles, judicial independence, and public confidence in the justice system,” said the statement released by the coordination committee objecting the L-G’s notification.
How lawyers view this
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate V.K. Singh, chairman of the coordination committee, said, “We have given the government an ultimatum to withdraw the notification within 48 hours, because this is the second time they have passed such an order.” Terming the notification “arbitrary” and unjust, he said, “If evidence is taken at the police stations, as opposed to the court, our practice, as criminal lawyers, will suffer. We are strongly against it.”
Earlier this year, on 15 July, the L-G had issued a similar notification, Singh said. “If they don’t withdraw by tomorrow, we will strike and protest.”
Echoing a similar sentiment, advocate Anil Kumar Basoya, who is also the secretary general of the coordination committee, underlined how such a move could negatively impact witness testimonies, recovery of weapons, and recording of evidence.
“As a matter of fact, evidence is always recorded in the court. It entails recovery of weapons, clothes, and other articles in criminal cases. These actions are only possible when all parties are physically present. For instance, when sealed articles are presented in court, they are opened only in the presence of the judge,” he said.
Basoya also argued that if the notification is passed, it will lead to the denial of justice. “Evidence is the most important thing in a trial. If a witness is sitting somewhere and he is being influenced or tutored, who will take care of that? There is no one to keep a check.”
From a procedural standpoint, when an officer deposes from within his own police station, there can be no assurance that isn’t aided by undisclosed notes, documents or external inputs. “Such a setting inherently lacks neutrality and renders the deposition susceptible to manipulation,” the committee’s 20 August representation states.
The committee in its statement also said presentation of physical evidence such as weapons or seized articles cannot be carried out effectively in remote circumstances, thereby compromising the evidentiary process and fitness of trial.
Similarly, advocate Sharad Jain, who also strongly supports the cause, told ThePrint, “The notification states that all evidence will be collected at police stations, which deviates from the status quo, where evidence is recorded in courts.”
The only medium for dispensing justice is the court, Jain said while adding that evidence is almost always collected in the presence of a judge and advocates, besides the police. “In the police stations, however, you can easily manipulate someone,” he said.
In their representation, which was sent to Shah, Delhi CM Gupta and Meghwal, among others, the lawyers also said that procedural reforms that affect litigant’s rights cannot be brought about by an administrative fiat.
“This notification is not only against the general public but also against the legal fraternity and the law itself. Lawyers are not fighting for their personal convenience, they are fighting in the larger public interest to protect litigants whose lives and liberties depend upon free and fair trials,” the lawyers said in their statement.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Foreign lawyers and law firms set to enter India. But red tape and caveats await them