High Court sets aside Trial Court's dismissal for lack of medical certificate, emphasizes Video Conferencing Rules enabling evidence recording for persons with physical infirmities
In a significant judgment dated August 27, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa, granted liberty to Daljitinder Kaur @ Daljit Inder Arora, a 72-year-old arthritis patient, to reapply for recording her evidence through video conferencing. The decision came after the Trial Court had dismissed her application on the ground that she failed to provide a medical certificate substantiating her inability to personally appear in court.
The petitioner had sought permission to record her testimony remotely, citing her advanced age and arthritis condition that required knee replacement surgery. The Trial Court's rejection was primarily due to the absence of a medical certificate at the time of application. However, upon revision, the High Court took cognizance of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India. These rules expressly allow for recording evidence through video conferencing in cases where the person involved is unable to be physically present in court due to sickness or physical infirmity.
The Court referred extensively to Rule 8.15 of the Video Conferencing Rules, which authorizes the Court to permit recording of evidence from the place where the person is located if the individual cannot reach the Court Point or Remote Point due to health reasons or undue delay and expense. The rules also ensure procedural safeguards, including identity verification, oath administration, recording of objections, preservation of audio-visual evidence, and signed transcripts to maintain the sanctity and authenticity of judicial proceedings.
Justice Nalwa highlighted that the mere absence of a medical certificate at the initial stage should not be a ground for outright rejection, especially when the petitioner had subsequently produced a medical certificate showing her arthritis and recommendation for knee replacement. Emphasizing the need for a fair and reasonable approach in line with the Video Conferencing Rules, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated July 3, 2026.
The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application within two weeks, accompanied by all requisite documents, including the medical certificate and references to the relevant provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules. The Trial Court was directed to consider the fresh application independently and in accordance with law, taking into account the petitioner's age, medical condition, and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the rules.
The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the fresh application and that the Trial Court would have the discretion to decide the matter afresh. This judgment strengthens the procedural mechanism to accommodate physically infirm persons in legal proceedings through digital means, ensuring access to justice without compromising procedural integrity.
Bottom Line:
Application for recording evidence via video conferencing - Trial Court dismissed application for lack of medical certificate - High Court held that Video Conferencing Rules provide for recording evidence in cases of sickness or physical infirmity - Petitioner aged 72 with Arthritis allowed liberty to reapply with requisite documents.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), Video Conferencing Rules framed by Punjab and Haryana High Court, Evidence Act, Information Technology Act
