Back
V. G. ARUN
ALEX C. JOSEPH S/O C. A. JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
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 contend
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
