IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G. ARUN, J.
ALEX C. JOSEPH S/O C.A. JOSEPH – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 10447 of 2024
Decided On : 18-12-2024
(A) Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 - The Rules facilitate cross-examination through video conferencing. The court emphasized the necessity of adapting to technological advancements to ensure access to justice. (Paras 2, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused sought permission to conduct cross-examination of prosecution witnesses via video conferencing due to health reasons, which was initially denied by the Sessions Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of a specific provision in the Rules should not impede the accused's right to counsel.
Issues: Whether cross-examination can occur via video conferencing from a remote point.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that conducting cross-examination through video conferencing meets the requirements of presence under Section 273 of Cr.P.C., promoting expeditious justice.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 1 of 2016 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. During trial, a petition was filed seeking permission for the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to conduct cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. Permission was sought citing health reasons and the counsel’s inability to travel up to Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Sessions Judge having rejected the petition, this Crl. M.C. is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (‘the Rules’ for short) is intended to enable, among other things, cross-examination through video conferencing also. In support of the argument, attention is drawn to the definitions of the words ‘Advocate’, ‘Court Point’, ‘Court User,’ ‘Remote Point’, ‘Remote User’ and ‘Required Person’ in Rule 2, the Principles laid down in Rule 3, the procedure for Examination of Persons contained in Rule 8 as well as Rule 10, intended to ensure seamless electronic video linkage. Relying on the Apex Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601, it is contended that courts should accept and adopt the changes brought about with the progress in technology.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI submitted that examination of the two witnesses, for the cross-examination of whom permission was sought, is over. It is further submitted that, if at all permission to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing is granted, it should be ensured that a responsible lawyer, capable of aiding the court and answering queries, is physically present during the cross-examination.
4. The short and interesting question arising for consideration is whether, cross-examination of witnesses present in court can be done from a remote point. In order to answer the question, it is essential to understand the meaning of the following expressions, as defined in Rule 2:
(e) ‘Court Point’ means the courtroom or other place where the Court sits or the place where the Commissioner or an inquiring officer holds proceedings pursuant to the directions of the Court.
(f) ‘Court User’ means a user participating in the Court proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage at a Court Point.
(i) ‘Electronic Video Linkage’ means a connection enabling a Person to communicate audio-visually from a Remote point and Court point.
(l) ‘Live Link’ means a live television link, audio-video electronic means or other arrangements whereby a witness, a required person or any other person is permitted to remain present, while physically absent from the Courtroom but is nevertheless virtually present in the Courtroom by remote communication using technology to give evidence and be cross-examined.
(m) ‘Remote Point’means a place where any person or persons are required to be present or appears, through a video link.
(n) ‘Remote User’ means a user participating in Court proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage at a Remote Point.
(o) ‘Required Person’ includes:
(i) the person who is to be examined.
(ii) the person in whose presence certain proceedings are to be recorded or conducted.
(iii) an Advocate or a party in person who intends to examine a witness.
(iv) any person who is required to make submissions before the Court.
(v) any other person who is permitted by the Court to appear through Electronic Video Linkage.”
5. A conjoint reading of the above expressions reveals that, an Advocate, who intends to examine a witness, can be permitted to be virtually present in the court room by remote communication using technology. Going by Rule 3(1), Electronic Video Linkage facilities can be used at all stages of judicial proceedings. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 3,
The court affirmed that cross-examination via video conferencing is permissible under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, enhancing access to justice.
Judicial endorsement of video conferencing for evidence collection is mandated, emphasizing modern practices should not be obstructed by technicalities.
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
The Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules (Kerala), 2025 provide a framework for conducting judicial proceedings via electronic means, ensuring procedural integrity and confidentiality while facilitat....
The main legal point established is the applicability of Video Conferencing Rules to civil proceedings and the requirement for a Coordinator at the remote point for examining a witness through video ....
The court ruled that a preliminary enquiry into a witness's competency is not required before video examination; this is to be assessed by the Magistrate during examination.
The requirement for a Co-ordinator at the remote point during video conferencing is a normative rule under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, and any exceptions must be justified by the court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.