The Karnataka High Court has relaxed the Video Conferencing Rules to permit a 71-year-old widow to record evidence from her residence in the United States of America in a probate proceeding, without seeking the services of Embassy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245].

The single judge of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, exercising the power conferred under Rule 18 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts [Notification HCC No.18/2020] allowed the petitioner to record her evidence [Examination-in-chief] without availing the services of the Indian Embassy.

Significantly, Rule 18 vests powers on the High Court, if the operation of any rule is causing undue hardship, to dispense with or relax the requirements of such rule by an order.

“...The petitioner is permitted to record her evidence without availing the services of the Indian Embassy, and the rigour of Rule 5.1 read with Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules, 2020 is relaxed to this extent, subject to the safeguards set out in para 9 above”, the court held while directing the trial court to decide the probate petition within three months.

Without the relaxation accorded to the petitioner by the court, Rule 5.3.1 of the Video Conferencing Rules makes it mandatory for foreign residents to route the proceedings through the Indian Embassy. Along with it, Rule 5.1 of the 2020 Rules requires a co-ordinator at a remote point be it Indian Consulate, the relevant Indian Embassy or the relevant High Commission of India.

The court has relaxed both the conditions subject to the following safeguards:

“…. i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the learned Trial Court that she shall not disconnect or permit any obstruction during the recording of her evidence.

(ii) In the event of any disconnection attributable to her, the entire evidence tendered by her shall stand discarded.

(iii) The Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose any additional safeguards that may be deemed necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of the proceedings…”

For context, the petitioner is a 71-year-old widow, whose husband passed away in 2024, leaving behind a duly executed Last Will and Testament. The said Will bequeathed all the properties of the husband in favour of the petitioner-widow. A petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was preferred by the said widow, wherein, she sought the probate before the Bengaluru Rural District & Sessions Court.

The petitioner is currently a Green Card holder (permanent resident in the USA), which places certain restrictions on her travel. As a result, an application was filed under Section 75 and Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, r/w Rules for Video Conferencing, seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner and permission to record her evidence through Video Conferencing from the USA.

Due to repeated adjournments by the Trial Court last year, the widow approached the High Court for expeditious disposal of the probate proceedings and relaxation of Conferencing Rules from the US, without seeking the assistance of the Indian Embassy.

“…The record reflects that despite public notices issued through publication in 'Kannada Prabha' and 'Indian Express', there were no objectors to the Will. Since the petition remained uncontested, the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence on 18.06.2025. The petitioner has thereafter filed I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with the provisions of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, seeking permission to depose evidence through Video Conferencing…”, the court initially noted in the order.

“…The order sheet of the learned Trial Court reflects that the matter has been adjourned for the petitioner's evidence for the last one year”, the court further pointed out.

Since the widow was a permanent resident in US and there were certain travel restrictions applicable to her, the court noted as below:

“…In addition, as these proceedings are uncontested and the public notice issued by the learned Trial Court did not evoke any response, this Court also deems it apposite to relax the Rule 5.3.1, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 18 of the Video Conferencing Rules, and permit the petitioner to record her evidence from her residence in the United States of America….”, the court concluded while allowing the petition.

Case Title: Mrs. Rekha Gupta (71 years, USA resident) v. NIL

Case No.: WP 12610/2026 (GM-CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 245

Click Here To Read/Download Order