High Court Relaxes Video Conferencing Rules to Permit Overseas Deposition Without Embassy Coordination in Uncontested Matters

The petitioner, a 71-year-old senior citizen and widow of late Mr. Girish Kumar Gupta, sought probate of her husband's Will dated 06.05.2024 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925

Following her husband's death, she relocated to the USA to reside with her son for familial care and obtained a Green Card, which imposed travel restrictions

Although the probate proceedings remained uncontested after public notice, the Trial Court had not disposed of her applications (I.A. Nos. 3 and 4) filed on 19.12.2025 seeking to record her evidence via video conferencing ("VC") from the USA

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to relax the procedural rigors of the Video Conferencing Rules

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its power to relax Rule 5.3.1 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts to permit the recording of evidence from an overseas residence without a diplomatic coordinator

2. Whether directions should be issued to the Trial Court for the expedited disposal of the probate petition

The court primarily applied Rule 18 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts (2020), which empowers the High Court to dispense with or relax requirements if a rule causes "undue hardship"

It also considered Rule 5.1 and Rule 5.3.1, which generally mandate that for overseas VC, a Coordinator must be an official of an Indian Consulate or Embassy

The court relied on the precedent Richa Mishra v. State of Karnataka, which held that the power to relax these specific rules for deponents outside the country vests solely with the High Court

The court observed that the petitioner is a senior citizen residing in the USA with travel constraints due to her Green Card status

Crucially, the court noted that the probate proceedings were non-adversarial and uncontested, as no objectors appeared despite public citations

The court reasoned that the delay in the Trial Court (over one year for evidence) was causing "undue hardship," preventing the petitioner from enjoying the fruits of the bequeathed property

By invoking Rule 18, the court determined that the requirement of an Embassy official as a coordinator (Rule 5.3.1) could be bypassed to ensure a "just and equitable" outcome, provided specific safeguards were implemented to maintain the integrity of the evidence

It held that the petitioner is permitted to record her evidence from her residence in the USA without a Consulate coordinator, subject to filing an undertaking against obstructions and a "discard" clause for intentional disconnections

Finally, the High Court directed the Trial Court to decide the probate matter expeditiously, preferably within three months