The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Trial Court order that rejected a 72-year-old woman’s request to record her evidence through video conferencing. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa held that the High Court’s Video Conferencing Rules specifically provide for recording evidence remotely when a person is unable to reach court because of sickness or physical infirmity.
The judgment was delivered on August 27, 2026, in a revision petition challenging the Trial Court’s July 3 order.
Background of the Case
The petitioner-plaintiff, Daljitinder Kaur @ Daljit Inder Arora, had approached the Trial Court seeking permission to give her evidence through video conferencing. The application was rejected primarily because she had not submitted a medical certificate at that stage to establish her inability to appear personally.
Before the High Court, her counsel submitted that she was about 72 years old, suffering from arthritis and had been advised knee replacement. A medical certificate supporting these circumstances was placed on record with the revision petition.
The petitioner relied particularly on Rule 8.15 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Video Conferencing Rules. The provision allows a court to authorize video conferencing from the place where a required person is located when sickness or physical infirmity prevents that person from reaching the Court Point or Remote Point, or where securing their presence would involve undue delay or expense.
Court’s Observation
Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa found merit in the petitioner’s submissions. The Court noted that the Video Conferencing Rules already provide a mechanism for recording evidence of persons who cannot reach court because of sickness or physical infirmity.
The Court also pointed out that the rules contain safeguards for ensuring that remote evidence remains reliable. These include identity verification, administration of oath, recording of objections, preservation of the audio-visual recording and inclusion of the signed transcript in the judicial record.
The High Court further observed:
“The mere absence of a medical certificate at the stage of consideration of the application could not be made the basis for rejecting the prayer, particularly when the Rules themselves provide for recording of evidence through video conferencing in appropriate cases of physical infirmity.”
Decision
The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s July 3, 2026 order. However, instead of directly granting permission for recording the evidence through video conferencing, the Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application with all necessary documents, including the relevant Video Conferencing Rules and medical records.
The petitioner’s counsel undertook to file the fresh application within two weeks. The High Court directed that, if filed, the Trial Court must consider it in accordance with law, keeping in view the applicable Video Conferencing Rules, particularly the provisions concerning examination through video conferencing, as well as the petitioner’s age and medical condition.
The High Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the fresh application and that the Trial Court would consider it independently.
Case Details
- Case Title: Daljitinder Kaur @ Daljit Inder Arora v. Amarinder Singh Brar and Ors.
- Case Number: CR-6441-2026(O&M)
- Judge: Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa
- Decision Date: August 27, 2026
