Rule 8.15 Permits Recording of Evidence from a Person’s Location in Cases of Sickness or Physical Infirmity; Request Cannot Be Rejected Merely for Initial Absence of Medical Certificate: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Daljitinder Kaur alias Daljit Inder Arora v. Amarinder Singh Brar and Others

Date of Judgment: 27 August 2026

Citation: CR-6441-2026

Bench: Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Rule 8.15 of the Video Conferencing Rules expressly empowers a court to permit the recording of evidence through video conferencing from the place where a person is located when sickness or physical infirmity prevents that person from reaching either the Court Point or the designated Remote Point. Such permission may also be granted where securing the person’s physical presence would cause undue delay or expense.

The Court held that a request to record evidence through video conferencing cannot be rejected merely because a medical certificate was not furnished at the initial stage, particularly when the governing Rules provide a specific mechanism for examining persons suffering from physical infirmity and the requisite medical documents are subsequently placed on record.

The Video Conferencing Rules contain adequate safeguards to protect the authenticity and sanctity of judicial proceedings, including verification of identity, administration of oath, recording and adjudication of objections, preservation of the audio-visual record, exclusion of unauthorised persons from the Remote Point and incorporation of the signed transcript into the judicial record.

Summary: The petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil revision petition challenging an order by which the Trial Court had dismissed her application seeking permission to record her evidence through video conferencing.

The Trial Court primarily rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished a medical certificate demonstrating her inability to appear physically before it. Consequently, it found that she had failed to establish sufficient cause for exemption from personal appearance.

Before the High Court, the petitioner submitted that she was approximately 72 years old, was suffering from arthritis and had been advised to undergo knee replacement surgery. A medical certificate supporting her condition was placed on record with the revision petition. It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to consider the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India for conducting judicial proceedings through electronic means.

The petitioner principally relied upon Rule 8.15, which applies where a person required to be examined is incapable of reaching the Court Point or Remote Point because of sickness or physical infirmity, or where that person’s presence cannot be secured without undue delay or expense. In such circumstances, the Rule empowers the Court to authorise video conferencing from the location where the person is present, including through a portable video conferencing system.

The High Court observed that the Rules create a comprehensive framework for recording evidence electronically. A person appearing through video conferencing must establish their identity; the oath must be duly administered; relevant documents must be transmitted in advance; objections raised during the deposition must be recorded; and the person’s demeanour may be noted by the Court.

The Rules also require the signed transcript to be incorporated into the judicial record and the audio-visual recording of the examination to be preserved through an encrypted master copy carrying a hash value. The Coordinator at the Remote Point must ensure that no unauthorised person remains present during the testimony. The Court may impose any additional conditions necessary to preserve the fairness and integrity of the examination.

Considering the petitioner’s age, stated medical condition and the medical certificate placed before it, the High Court held that the Trial Court ought to have examined the request in light of Rule 8.15 and the other safeguards contained in the Video Conferencing Rules. The mere non-production of a medical certificate when the original application was considered could not, by itself, justify the outright rejection of the request.

The High Court, however, did not directly grant permission to record the petitioner’s evidence through video conferencing. It held that the Trial Court must independently reconsider the request after examining the complete material, the petitioner’s age and medical condition, and the applicable provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh application seeking permission to record her evidence through video conferencing. The fresh application was directed to be accompanied by the relevant provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules, the medical documents relied upon and all other requisite material.

The petitioner undertook to file the application within two weeks. If filed within that period, the Trial Court was directed to decide it independently and in accordance with law, particularly Rule 8.15 and the provisions governing the examination of persons through video conferencing.