Punjab & Haryana HC Seeks Haryana Govt Response on Police Stations as ‘Designated Places’ for Witness Examination

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

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

Petition Challenges Judicial Acts in Police Premises

The plea, argued by Advocate Arjun Sheoran, contended 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 strict separation between investigation (executive) and trial (judicial) functions.

The petition argued that allowing judicial acts, such as examination of witnesses and recording of evidence, inside police premises leads to a collapse of separation between investigative and judicial roles. It further stated that police-controlled environments:

• Compromise judicial neutrality

• Expose witnesses to coercion, intimidation, or tutoring

• Undermine statutory safeguards meant to ensure free and fair testimony

• Contradict due process guarantees under Article 21

Supporting Evidence and Comparative Jurisdictions

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

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

To demonstrate arbitrariness, the petition noted that neighbouring jurisdictions—Punjab and Chandigarh have avoided including police stations as designated video-conferencing venues. It also referenced Delhi, where a similar notification has been kept in abeyance and is under judicial scrutiny in the Delhi High Court.

Case Title: Harish Mehla v. State of Haryana and Others