The lawyers in Delhi have escalated their protest into an indefinite strike set to begin on September 8, 2025, after a contentious circular was issued by the Delhi Police which allows police witnesses to give depositions via video conferencing from police stations.
This circular directly contradicts the assurances provided just days earlier by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, who had promised that police officials would not be required to depose from their own police stations. The legal fraternity, led by the Coordination Committee of All District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi, strongly opposes this move, arguing that such a process undermines the principle of a fair trial, buries transparency, and infringes on the right of the accused to a proper defence.
Concerns Over Fair Trial and Transparency
The strike officially follows a September 4 circular from the Delhi Police Commissioner, which clarifies that only “formal police witnesses” would be permitted to give evidence through electronic means from designated places such as police stations, while “material police witnesses” must continue to appear in court in person. Despite this partial concession, lawyers maintain that the circular leaves too much discretion with the courts and creates a dangerous precedent divergent from what was promised by the Home Minister.
Advocate Nagendra Kumar, Convener of the Coordination Committee, said, “This circular deviates from what was agreed with the Union Home Minister and infringes on the accused’s right to cross-examine witnesses in a fair manner.” Advocate Tarun Rana, Secretary of the New Delhi Bar Association, confirmed the decision to intensify the strike with a complete abstention from work across Delhi district courts starting September 8.
Background and Legal Dispute
The background to this dispute dates to August 13, 2025, when the Delhi Lieutenant Governor issued a notification designating police stations as places for police personnel to deposit evidence via video conferencing, aiming to modernize judicial procedures and reduce case backlogs. However, this notification faced immediate backlash for allegedly violating Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
Lawyers termed the move “anti-law,” fearing it would empower police officers with unmonitored influence, prevent proper observation of witness demeanour, and stifle effective cross-examination, potentially leading to miscarriages of justice. After an earlier strike from August 22 to 28 and meetings with officials including Amit Shah, the contentious notification was temporarily put on hold. The recent police circular, however, reignited conflict and disrupted court functioning, with many trials adjourned and urgent matters prioritized.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Logical Indian stresses the importance of balancing judicial efficiency with foundational principles of justice and transparency. Digital tools can indeed enhance court processes but must never replace the constitutional safeguards ensuring open trials and accountability, especially in criminal cases.
The ongoing impasse underscores the need for sincere dialogue and compromise among the judiciary, law enforcement, and lawyer bodies, with a shared commitment to both reform and fairness.
