After 3 Delhi Trips Without Cross-Examination, Delhi HC Allows 71-Year-Old Uttarakhand Witness to Be Cross-Examined by Video

The applicant sought permission to cross-examine PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen, through video conferencing. She was approximately 71 years old, resided in Uttarakhand, and was stated to have age-related health conditions for which her doctor had advised rest.

She had travelled to Delhi three times for cross-examination, but it did not proceed on those dates for reasons including counsel’s illness, the Court being on leave, and a bereavement in counsel’s family.

The application was considered while the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for PW-6’s cross-examination.

Rule 8.15 of the High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 permits the Court to authorize video conferencing from the person’s location where sickness, physical infirmity, or undue delay or expense prevents attendance at the Court Point or Remote Point.

Rule 8.12 permits the Court to impose conditions necessary for effective examination.

Although the 2021 Rules had been repealed, Rule 27(2)(a) of the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 preserves, to the applicable extent, actions and proceedings commenced before those Rules came into force.

The 2025 Rules also permit remote examination where sickness, physical infirmity, or undue delay or expense prevents attendance (Rule 13(8)), while Rule 13(9) allows the Court to decline video examination, for recorded reasons, if evidence cannot be effectively recorded that way.

The Court considered PW-6’s age, stated health difficulties, residence in Uttarakhand, and three unsuccessful journeys to Delhi.

These circumstances fell within the grounds for remote examination under the applicable video-conferencing rules, and no impediment to effectively recording her evidence had been shown.

The Court balanced the hardship of further travel against the respondent’s right to cross-examine her, concluding that procedural safeguards could preserve the fairness and effectiveness of the examination.

It imposed safeguards concerning the examination location, identity verification, privacy, document handling, authentication of the deposition, technical arrangements, costs, and prevention of unauthorized recording.

The permission concerns only the mode of recording and does not dispense with legal requirements for recording evidence or limit the respondent’s right to an effective cross-examination.