Premium

HC questions Haryana over move to record witness statements at police stations

After the petitioner cited the Centre’s bar on designating police premises for audio-visual depositions, the Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the state to explain its stand.

3 min readChandigarhDec 2, 2025 06:28 PM IST

In his judgment, Justice Sumeet Goel emphasised that the paramount consideration in all matters relating to the custody of a minor is the welfare and best interests of the child. (File Photo)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday questioned the Haryana government’s move to designate police station premises for recording witness testimony through audio-visual means after a petitioner argued that the state’s notification directly contradicted a clarification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).

The division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry was hearing a petition challenging Clause 7 of a notification issued by Haryana in July, which lists video-conferencing rooms located in offices of the state police headquarters, vigilance wing and Crime Bureau as designated places for examination of witnesses under sections 265, 266 and 308 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Arguing that the provision was impermissible, the petitioner pointed the court to a detailed letter issued by the home secretary to all states shortly after the BNSS came into force. “It is clarified that for the purpose of these sections, police stations or places under control of the police department may not be designated as places of examination of witnesses through audio-visual electronic means,” the letter stated, according to the petitioner.

He submitted that both the Chandigarh administration and the Punjab government had amended their earlier notifications to expressly exclude police stations and police-controlled premises, but “somehow the state of Haryana didn’t get the memo.”

‘Undermines neutrality’

He referred to the Union territory’s modified notification removing three clauses that earlier allowed depositions from police stations, and to Punjab’s notification that expressly states: “Police stations, police headquarters and premises under the control of the police department shall be expressly excluded.”

The petitioner contended that allowing testimony from police-controlled premises undermines the neutrality of the process, especially in cases where police personnel are prosecution witnesses. “Currently, policemen are sitting inside police stations and deposing. This was never the intent,” he argued, adding that such a practice risks influencing witnesses and violates the safeguards envisaged under BNSS.

The bench repeatedly asked the state to explain why the impugned clause existed if the Centre had already issued a binding clarification. Chief Justice Nagu observed that “when the central government has clarified the position, states are bound to follow the sentiment of a central Act.”

‘Inadvertent mistake’

Story continues below this ad

The Haryana state counsel said the inclusion of police-controlled facilities appeared to be “an inadvertent mistake” and sought time to seek instructions. “They may file a representation… We will consider it and do whatever is required,” the law officer said, adding that the state was willing to examine the issue.

The bench then asked the state to return with clear instructions. “Have you made any representation?” Justice Berry asked the petitioner. When counsel said no, the Chief Justice noted that since the Centre’s clarification was already on record, it was for the state to explain its stand first.

Indicating that it would not dispose of the petition immediately, Chief Justice Nagu said the issue was significant in light of the statutory framework. The matter was posted for the second week of December after the state assured it would examine the notification.

Manraj Grewal Sharma

Manraj Grewal Sharma is a senior journalist and the Resident Editor of The Indian Express in Chandigarh, where she leads the newspaper’s coverage of north India’s most politically and institutionally significant regions. From Punjab and Haryana to Himachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, she oversees reporting at the intersection of governance, law, politics and society. She also reports on the diaspora, especially in Canada and the US. With a career spanning journalism across several countries, academia and international development, Manraj brings a rare depth of perspective to regional reporting. She is widely regarded as a leading chronicler of Punjab’s contemporary history and socio-political evolution, particularly its long shadow of militancy, federal tensions and identity politics. Her book, Dreams after Darkness, remains a definitive account of the militancy years and their enduring aftermath. Professional Background & Expertise A gold medalist in mass communication and a post-graduate in English literature, Manraj has a multifaceted career spanning journalism, academia, and international development. She was also awarded a fellowship by National Foundation of India and did several in-depth pieces on Manipur. Internationally, she has reported from Israel, US, UK, Myanmar, and Mauritius Her key focus areas include: Regional Politics, History, Agriculture, Diaspora, and Security. Of late, she has started focusing on Legal & Judicial Affairs: Much of her recent work involves reporting on high-stakes cases in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, ranging from environmental policy to civil rights. International Consulting: She previously served as a consulting editor for the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network and a publishing consultant for the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Manila. Academia: For five years, she was the managing editor of Gender, Technology and Development, a peer-reviewed international journal at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok. Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reportage focuses heavily on judicial interventions and regional governance: 1. Environment & Governance "‘NGT can’t test legality of policy’: HC hears challenge to Punjab’s ‘Green Habitat’ plan" (Dec 22, 2025): Covering a critical legal battle over whether the National Green Tribunal has the authority to strike down a state policy regularizing farmhouses on delisted forest land. "High court pulls up Punjab poll panel over audio clip probe" (Dec 10, 2025): Reporting on judicial concerns regarding the transparency and fairness of local body elections. 2. Legal Rights & Social Welfare "HC issues notice to Punjab, Haryana over delay in building old age homes" (Dec 22, 2025): Reporting on a contempt petition against top officials for failing to establish government-run homes for the elderly as promised in 2019. "Victims can appeal acquittals in sessions court without seeking special leave" (Dec 19, 2025): Highlighting a significant procedural shift in criminal law following a Supreme Court ruling. "HC upholds benefits for Punjab FCI officer acquitted in 20-year-old bribery case" (Dec 19, 2025): A report on the concept of "honourable acquittal" and its impact on employee benefits. 3. Human Rights & Identity "As Punjab denies parole to MP Amritpal Singh, HC asks it to submit ‘foundational material’" (Dec 1, 2025): Covering the legal proceedings regarding the radical preacher and sitting MP's request to attend Parliament. "Protecting life paramount: HC backs Muslim woman in live-in after verbal divorce" (Nov 6, 2025): Analyzing judicial protections for personal liberty in the context of traditional practices. Signature Beats Manraj is recognized for her ability to decode complex judicial rulings and relate them to the everyday lives of citizens. Whether it is a 30-year-old land battle in Fazilka or the political implications of Kangana Ranaut’s candidacy in Mandi, her writing provides deep historical and regional context. Contact @grewal_sharma on X manrajgrewalsharma on Instagram ... Read More