P&H High Court Seeks Haryana Govt's Response On PIL Challenging Notification That Allows Police Witness To Testify From Station

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday sought Haryana government's response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a notification that designates the police headquarters and police stations as 'designated places' for online examination of witnesses in criminal trials.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry asked counsel for the Haryana Government to seek instructions and adjourned the matter to December 18.

The plea argued by Advocate Arjun Sheoran asserted that the term “Designated Place” under Sections 265(3), 266(2), and 308 BNSS (corresponding to erstwhile Sections 242, 243, and 273 CrPC) must be construed ejusdem generis with the statute's objective of maintaining a strict institutional separation between investigation (executive) and trial (judicial).

Allowing judicial acts—such as the examination of witnesses and recording of evidence—to occur inside police premises amounts to a collapse of the separation between investigative and judicial functions, the petition argues.

It states further that police-controlled environments, compromise judicial neutrality, expose witnesses to coercion, intimidation, or tutoring, erase statutory safeguards meant to ensure free and fair testimony, and fundamentally contradict the due process guarantees of Article 21.

The petition relies on NCRB, NHRC, and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) reports documenting custodial violence, torture, and misconduct in police stations, arguing that such locations are “institutionally unsuitable” for any part of a judicial proceeding.

The challenge also assails the combined effect of the impugned notification and the Haryana 2021 Video Conferencing Rules, which allow police personnel to act as “Coordinators” responsible for facilitating the video-conferencing process.

To demonstrate the arbitrariness of Haryana's approach, the petition points out that neighbouring jurisdictions—Punjab and Chandigarh—have consciously avoided including police stations as designated video-conferencing venues.

The petition also highlighted that a similar notification in Delhi has been kept in abeyance and is under judicial scrutiny before the Delhi High Court, reflecting the seriousness and justiciability of the issue.

Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Additional A.G. Haryana.

Title: HARISH MEHLA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS