A 71-year-old witness, resident in Uttarakhand and medically advised rest, travelled to Delhi three times for a cross-examination that never happened — once the opposing counsel was ill, once the court was on leave, once the examining counsel suffered a bereavement. In Gopal Chandra Bose v. State & Ors, TEST.CAS. 105/2014, decided on 27 October 2026, the Delhi High Court held that the law does not require a fourth journey. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma allowed the cross-examination to proceed by video conferencing, and in doing so clarified how the new Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 interact with the 2021 regime for pending cases.
The application and its background
The application — I.A. 5080/2026 in a testamentary case of 2014 — sought permission for PW-6, a woman of about 71 years living in Uttarakhand with age-related ailments and a doctor’s advice of rest, to be cross-examined through video conferencing. Her three earlier trips to Delhi, on 5 November 2024, 10 February 2025 and 24 July 2025, had each ended without her cross-examination taking place, for reasons attributable to neither her nor her evidence: an adjournment for opposing counsel’s illness, the court being on leave, and a bereavement in the examining counsel’s family. The respondents did not dispute that she is a crucial witness or that her health difficulties are real.
The transitional question: 2021 Rules or 2025 Rules?
The legal interest of the judgment lies in its handling of the rulebook. The High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 — whose Rules 8.12 and 8.15 permit recording evidence from a remote location where sickness, infirmity, or undue delay and expense make attendance difficult — were repealed by the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. The Court held that Rule 27(2)(a) of the 2025 Rules preserves the 2021 framework for proceedings pending when the new rules commenced, so the application fell to be decided under the 2021 Rules. It then went further, testing the request against Rules 13(8) and 13(9) of the 2025 Rules as well, and found it permissible under either, since no party had shown any impediment to the effective recording of the testimony.
That belt-and-braces approach gives practitioners a working rule for the transition: in pending matters, cite the 2021 Rules through the savings clause, but be prepared to satisfy the 2025 standards too — a request sound under both is effectively unassailable.
The safeguards ordered
The balance the order strikes
Two interests pull against each other whenever remote evidence is sought: the convenience and dignity of a witness for whom repeated court journeys are a hardship, and the opposing party’s right to a searching, effective cross-examination. The judgment protects both. The witness is spared a fourth journey to Delhi; the cross-examining party keeps every substantive right, with the Court recording expressly that the respondent’s right to test the testimony of PW-6 must remain fully protected and that the order concerns only the mode of recording.
For litigators, the case is a template. Where a witness is elderly, unwell or distant, an application supported by medical advice and a concrete history of frustrated attendance — as here — stands on strong ground, and the conditions imposed in this order are a ready checklist for drafting the prayer: venue hierarchy, identity verification, presence disclosure, document protocol, authentication and costs.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can a witness be examined by video conferencing in Delhi?
The High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021 — Rules 8.12 and 8.15 in particular — permit evidence from the witness’s location where sickness, infirmity or the undue delay and expense of attendance make personal appearance difficult, with the court free to impose conditions. The 2025 Rules carry forward a comparable framework.
Which rules apply now that the 2021 Rules stand repealed?
The Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 repealed the 2021 Rules, but Rule 27(2)(a) preserves the 2021 Rules for proceedings already pending. The Court additionally found that even under Rules 13(8) and 13(9) of the 2025 Rules the request was permissible, since no impediment to effective recording was shown — so the application succeeded under either regime.
What safeguards did the Court impose?
The date is to be fixed by the Joint Registrar (Judicial); the examination is first to be held at a designated VC facility in Uttarakhand, with recording from the witness’s residence allowed only if her health makes travel difficult; her identity must be verified and the voluntariness of her testimony confirmed; the link must be tested in advance; only essential, disclosed persons may be present; documents are to be shown as directed; the deposition must be read over and authenticated; unauthorised recording or dissemination is prohibited; and the applicant initially bears the expenses.
Does allowing VC dilute the right of cross-examination?
No. The Court stressed that the order governs only the mode of recording evidence and waives no legal requirement, and that the respondent’s right to test the witness’s testimony remains fully protected. Video conferencing changes the room, not the rigour.