Trial Court Cannot Reject Video Conferencing Plea Merely for Want of Medical Certificate: Punjab & Haryana HC

Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa set aside a Trial Court order dismissing a 72-year-old arthritis patient’s application to record evidence via video conferencing, holding that the absence of a medical certificate at the application stage cannot be the sole basis for rejection when the High Court’s own Video Conferencing Rules expressly accommodate physical infirmity.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, sitting at Chandigarh, on 27 August 2026 set aside a Trial Court order that had refused to permit the petitioner-plaintiff, a 72-year-old woman suffering from arthritis and advised knee replacement, to record her evidence through video conferencing. Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa, sitting singly, found that the Trial Court had dismissed the application on the narrow ground that no medical certificate accompanied it, without engaging with Rule 8.15 of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court itself under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application before the Trial Court within two weeks.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner-plaintiff, Daljitinder Kaur @ Daljit Inder Arora, is the plaintiff in a civil suit pending before a Trial Court. She filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to record her evidence through video conferencing. The Trial Court, by order dated 3 July 2026, dismissed that application. The sole reason given was that she had not produced a medical certificate demonstrating her inability to appear in person, and therefore no sufficient cause existed to exempt her from personal attendance.

Daljitinder Kaur challenged that order before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CR-6441-2026. She appeared through Mr. A.S. Narang, Advocate. No respondent was represented at the hearing.

The Legal Issue: Whether Rule 8.15 Was Ignored

The central question was whether the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, was required to apply the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court, and specifically Rule 8.15 of those Rules.

The Video Conferencing Rules were framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India to govern judicial proceedings conducted through electronic means. Rule 8.15 states that where a required person is not capable of reaching the Court Point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity, or where that person’s presence cannot be secured without undue delay or expense, the Court may authorise the conduct of video conferencing from the place at which such person is located. In such circumstances, the Court may also direct use of a portable video conferencing system.

The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Trial Court's order made no mention of this provision and effectively treated the absence of a medical certificate as an absolute bar, foreclosing any consideration of the Rules framework.

How Justice Nalwa Reasoned

Justice Nalwa accepted the submission that the Trial Court had failed to take Rule 8.15 into account. The Court observed that the Video Conferencing Rules “specifically provide a mechanism for recording the evidence of a person who, on account of sickness or physical infirmity, is unable to reach the Court Point or the Remote Point.”

The Rules, the Court noted, also contemplate comprehensive safeguards to preserve the sanctity and authenticity of proceedings recorded through video conferencing. These include verification of identity before examination, administration of oath by the Coordinator at the Court Point, recording of objections, preservation of an audio-visual recording with an encrypted master copy bearing a hash value, and incorporation of a signed transcript into the judicial record. Rules 8.1 through 8.16 set out a detailed procedural architecture for such examinations.

Against that backdrop, the Court found it impermissible to reject the application purely because a medical certificate was absent at the time the application was considered. The petitioner-plaintiff, at 72 years of age and suffering from arthritis with a recommendation for knee replacement surgery, had placed a medical certificate on record as Annexure P-4 with the revision petition, even if it had not accompanied the original application before the Trial Court.

The Court held: “The mere absence of a medical certificate at the stage of consideration of the application could not be made the basis for rejecting the prayer, particularly when the Rules themselves provide for recording of evidence through video conferencing in appropriate cases of physical infirmity.” The Trial Court had thus applied a standard not supported by the Rules framed for this precise situation.

Justice Nalwa was careful to clarify that he was not deciding whether the petitioner ultimately deserved the relief. He expressly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of any fresh application, and that the Trial Court must consider any such application independently and in accordance with law.

Directions to the Trial Court

The impugned order dated 3 July 2026 was set aside in its entirety.

The petitioner-plaintiff was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the Trial Court seeking permission to record her evidence through video conferencing. The fresh application must be accompanied by all requisite documents, including the relevant provisions of the Video Conferencing Rules and the medical documents relied upon by her.

The counsel for the petitioner undertook before the Court that the fresh application would be filed within two weeks of the order, i.e., by around 10 September 2026.

The Trial Court was directed that, upon filing of such an application, it shall consider the same in accordance with law and in light of the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court, with particular attention to the provisions governing examination of persons through video conferencing, and with reference to the medical condition and age of the petitioner-plaintiff.

All pending applications in the revision were also disposed of.

Order

CR-6441-2026 was allowed. The order dated 3 July 2026 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff’s application for recording evidence through video conferencing was set aside. The petitioner-plaintiff was directed to file a fresh application within two weeks, complete with all requisite documents. The Trial Court was directed to decide the fresh application in accordance with law, the Video Conferencing Rules, and with due regard to the petitioner’s age and medical condition. The High Court clarified it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the fresh application.