The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the rights of the accused with the practicalities of the legal process, especially in cases involving elderly accused individuals with health conditions, and the use of modern technology for virtual appearances.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Factual Background

Submissions On Behalf Of The Parties

(I) The Case Of Petitioners

(II) Arguments On Behalf Of Complainant

Issue Before This Court

Law On Presence Of An Accused Facing Trial Before The Court

(I) Trial Should Be Conducted In Presence Of Accused: Fundamental Principle

(Ii) Power Of Courts To Grant Exemption From Personal Appearance To Accused

Virtual Hearings: Court Policies & Guidelines

Analysis And Conclusion

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking appeal/repeal/revision/alteration/modification/setting aside, in full or in part, of order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The petitioner no.1, who is 75 years of age, is an accused in case FIR bearing no. 16/2020, registered at Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi on 12.01.2020 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') which is pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. As disclosed in the petition, the petitioner no. 1 herein had sought transfer of the aforesaid case from the court of the learned ASJ by way of Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 30/2023 wherein the grievances of the petitioner no. 1 were summarized. However, the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 was passed whereby the learned District Judge had recorded that the petitioner no. 1 does not wish to press the transfer petition and he was directed to attend the Trial Court proceedings through physical or virtual mode as per his health conditions. It was ordered that when appearing virtually, he would supply supporting medical documents.

4. The impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by learned District Judge is reproduced as under:

"...Affidavit dated 05.06.2023 of the applicant has been filed wherein he has undertaken that he will appear in the Court on each date of hearing, either virtually or physically, as per his health condition. In case, he appears virtually, he will file supporting medical documents. The petitioner, who has joined virtually today, reiterates the averments made in his affidavit and submits that he does not press the present transfer petition.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present transfer petition is disposed of as not pressed with the directions that the petitioner shall join the proceedings on each date of hearing preferably physically and in case of virtual hearing, he will furnish a proper medical certificate and it will be the discretion of the trial court to reject the medical certificate if the same is not issued by a recognized hospital or medical practitioner..."

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

(i) The Case of Petitioners

5. It is the case of petitioners herein that petitioner no. 1 was forced to submit to such conditions, and that the impugned order was passed in violation of rights of the petitioner. It is also stated that it is in violation and is contrary to this Court's Office Order and Adopted Policy dated 05.06.2023 and contrary to the policy, rules and regulations adopted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and policy enforcement requests to all High Court Chief Justices by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India.

6. It is argued by petitioner no. 2, who appears in person, that the impugned order be set aside as it is impossible and impractical for petitioner no. 1 to appear on each date of hearing physically in the Trial Court due to his advanced age and health conditions. It is stated that the learned District Judge also did not discuss or adjudicate upon the merits of the case since the petitioner was forced to state that the transfer petition was not pressed. She also states that after passing of the impugned order, the case was listed before the learned Trial Court on