The Delhi High Court has permitted the cross-examination of a 71-year-old witness through video conferencing, considering her age-related health conditions and the inconvenience caused by repeated journeys from Uttarakhand to Delhi. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the application while ensuring that the opposing party's right to cross-examine the witness would remain protected.
Background
The order was passed in Gopal Chandra Bose v. State & Ors., in Test Case No. 105/2014, on an application seeking permission to cross-examine PW-6, Krishna Sen, through video conferencing.
According to the application, Sen, who resides in Uttarakhand, has been experiencing age-related health difficulties and has been advised by her doctor to rest. Her condition was stated to prevent her from undertaking further physical journeys to Delhi for the proceedings.
The Court noted that the witness had already travelled to Delhi three times for her cross-examination, on November 5, 2024, February 10, 2025, and July 24, 2025. However, the examination could not take place on any of those dates due to different circumstances, including an adjournment sought on account of illness, the Court being on leave, and the petitioner's counsel being unavailable because of a bereavement.
Justice Sharma observed that requiring the elderly witness to undertake further journeys despite her stated health difficulties would cause avoidable hardship. At the same time, the Court emphasised that cross-examination remains essential to a fair judicial process.
The Court observed,
"In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid circumstances call for a pragmatic approach, since requiring her to undertake further physical journeys from Uttarakhand to Delhi, despite her age and the health-related difficulties stated to be faced by her, would cause her avoidable hardship."
The Bench examined the applicable video-conferencing rules, including the Delhi High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021, and the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. It noted that the rules permit remote examination where sickness, physical infirmity, or undue delay or expense makes physical attendance difficult.
The Court further observed that the proposed arrangement could facilitate the completion of the witness's examination without compromising procedural fairness. It stated,
"At the same time, appropriate safeguards can be imposed to ensure that the respondent is afforded a full and effective opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the proceedings remain fair and reliable."
The High Court allowed the application, subject to safeguards. The cross-examination will take place at a designated video-conferencing facility in Uttarakhand, with the possibility of recording it at the witness's residence if her health makes travel to that facility difficult.
The Court directed that her identity be verified, the video-conferencing equipment be tested in advance, and no unauthorised person be permitted to influence her testimony. The petitioner will initially bear the expenses of the arrangements, subject to further orders.
Clarifying the scope of its order, the Court held,
"The permission granted by this Court is confined to the mode of recording the cross-examination of PW-6 and shall not be construed as dispensing with any requirement of law governing the recording of evidence."
The application, I.A. 5080/2026, was accordingly disposed of.
