Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Rule 6 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, governs the procedures for examining witnesses via electronic video linkage, emphasizing that such examinations are to be treated as substantive compliance with relevant procedural laws. It allows for the examination of witnesses even when their physical presence is not feasible, provided certain conditions are met, such as undue delay or expense, or genuine reasons like sickness or infirmity of the witness ["Gopal. C. VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Prosecutor, Anti-Corruption Bureau - Kerala"] ["SURESH KUMAR vs SANTHOSH - Kerala"].
The rule explicitly states that in cases where a witness or required person cannot attend the court due to reasons like health issues or other genuine circumstances, the court may authorize proceedings through video linkage from the witness's or person's location. This is supported by provisions that permit the court to consider such circumstances as valid grounds for remote examination ["Gopal. C. VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Prosecutor, Anti-Corruption Bureau - Kerala"] ["SURESH KUMAR vs SANTHOSH - Kerala"].
Additionally, Rule 6(2) and Rule 8(23) specify that the court must ensure the presence of a coordinator at the remote point, typically an official of the Indian Embassy or Consulate, to facilitate seamless proceedings. Exemptions are only permissible in exceptional cases with genuine reasons, which must be recorded in writing and approved by the court ["SURESH KUMAR vs SANTHOSH - Kerala"] ["Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby, D/o. Baby James VS Bobby Satheesan, S/o. Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 879"].
The overarching purpose of Rule 6 is to enhance accessibility, expedite proceedings, and reduce delays or expenses associated with physical presence, especially for witnesses employed abroad or facing health issues. The rules also empower courts to conduct various stages of judicial proceedings—including cross-examination, recording statements, and framing charges—via electronic video linkage at their discretion ["Gopal. C. VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Prosecutor, Anti-Corruption Bureau - Kerala"] ["Vidhya Mundekkat D/o Kesavan Mundekkat VS Akhilesh Jayaram S/o P. C. Jayaram - Kerala"] ["VIDHYA MUNDEKKAT, Vs AKHILESH JAYARAM, - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Rule 6 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, provides a comprehensive framework for conducting witness examinations remotely, emphasizing flexibility in genuine circumstances such as health issues or undue delays. It ensures that proceedings remain fair and efficient while maintaining procedural integrity, with specific provisions for the appointment of coordinators and conditions under which exemptions may be granted. This rule aligns with the broader objective of making courts more accessible and expeditious through technology-enabled mechanisms ["Gopal. C. VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Prosecutor, Anti-Corruption Bureau - Kerala"] ["SURESH KUMAR vs SANTHOSH - Kerala"].
In an era where technology is revolutionizing judicial processes, video conferencing has become a cornerstone for efficient court proceedings, especially in cases involving remote or overseas witnesses. However, strict adherence to procedural rules is paramount. A common query arises: What does Rule 6 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, entail? This blog post delves into this rule, its requirements, implications of non-compliance, and broader context from Kerala High Court judgments.
Rule 6 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, explicitly mandates the appointment of a Co-ordinator at the remote point during proceedings conducted via electronic video linkage. This is particularly crucial when witnesses or required persons are located overseas or at distant locations. The rule ensures smooth facilitation, technical support, and procedural integrity. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James vs Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1686
Courts must follow these procedural safeguards unless there are justified exemptions backed by genuine reasons. Without such justification, deviations can render proceedings invalid, leading to orders being set aside or requiring reconsideration. As highlighted in key rulings, Rule 6 (along with Rule 5(4) and Rule 8(23)) governs the requirement for appointing a Co-ordinator at the remote point, especially in cases involving overseas witnesses. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James vs Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1686
Failure to appoint a coordinator, as seen in a Family Court case, resulted in the order being set aside due to lack of sufficient reasoning. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James vs Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1686
Non-adherence to Rule 6 constitutes a procedural violation with serious consequences. Courts emphasize that exemptions are permissible only if justified by genuine reasons, and such justification must be explicitly provided by the court. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby, D/o. Baby James VS Bobby Satheesan, S/o. Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 879
In one instance, the Family Court's omission of a coordinator without proper explanation led to the petition being allowed and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The ruling underscored: the requirement for a Co-ordinator at the remote point is normative; the Family Court's failure to justify its decision not to appoint one contravened the rules. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby, D/o. Baby James VS Bobby Satheesan, S/o. Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 879
This procedural fidelity protects the rights of all parties, ensuring fair trials even in virtual settings. Generally, such lapses may invite challenges, potentially delaying justice.
Kerala's adoption of electronic video linkage reflects a commitment to modernizing justice delivery. Rule 6 fits within a comprehensive framework:
Courts have repeatedly affirmed video linkage's validity. For example, in a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Kerala High Court dismissed challenges to video examination, noting it can ensure effective cross-examination in line with modern procedural rules. GOPAL.C. vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25075
Building on the 2021 rules, the Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules (Kerala), 2025 consolidate audio-video technology across High Courts, District Courts, and tribunals. These rules, approved under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 530), mandate confidentiality, security, and procedural integrity for remote examinations. They deem electronic proceedings equivalent to in-person ones, promoting efficiency. The Registrar General vs The Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58349
Video conferencing extends to cross-examination, even from remote points. In a case where counsel cited health issues, the court quashed a denial order, holding that cross-examination via video conferencing is permissible under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, enhancing access to justice. ALEX C. JOSEPH S/O C. A. JOSEPH VS STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1621ALEX C JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 57151
The objective is clear: The very objective behind introduction of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules is to make courts more accessible and the proceedings, more expeditious. ALEX C JOSEPH vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 57151
Rule 3 empowers video use at all judicial stages, while Rule 11 grants courts flexibility. Rameshan, S/O Chellappan Achari vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2990 This was applied in a Kerala Abkari Act case, allowing electronic responses for an abroad petitioner, emphasizing technology's role in accessibility. Rameshan, S/O Chellappan Achari vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2990
Rule 8(17) and (18) address audio-video recording, relevant for sensitive matters like SC/ST Act cases. Courts have allowed video recording or live streaming as part of Article 21's access to justice. State of Kerala, Represented By the Deputy Superintendent of Police VS Nowfal - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 75
While Rule 6 is normative, exceptional exemptions are allowed if courts provide explicit, genuine reasons. Documentation is key to withstand scrutiny. Parties should note that unjustified deviations typically lead to invalidation. Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James vs Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1686
To navigate these rules effectively:- Ensure Coordinator Appointment: Verify at the remote point for overseas/remote witnesses.- Document Justifications: For any exemption, record genuine reasons thoroughly.- Leverage Applications: Use Schedule II forms for requests. Rameshan, S/O Chellappan Achari vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2990- Stay Updated: Monitor transitions to 2025 rules for enhanced protocols. The Registrar General vs The Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58349- Challenge Non-Compliance: Parties may petition if procedural breaches occur, as courts prioritize fairness.
Courts and litigants benefit from proactive adherence, minimizing remands and delays.
Rule 6 underscores procedural rigor in Kerala's video linkage framework, mandating coordinators to uphold justice integrity. While technology expedites proceedings, deviations without justification risk invalidation, as evidenced by rulings like Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby, D/o. Baby James VS Bobby Satheesan, S/o. Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 879 and Meenu Bobby @ Meenu Baby D/o Baby James vs Bobby Satheesan S/o Satheesan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1686.
Key Takeaways:- Appoint coordinators routinely for remote proceedings.- Justify exemptions explicitly.- Embrace evolving rules like the 2025 version for secure virtual justice.
This post provides general insights based on cited judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Rule 7 provides the mode of service of summons in relation to witnesses proposed to be examined or heard through electronic video linkage and Rule 8 deals with examination of persons. ... While appraising the rival contentions on the issue, Rules 7 and 8 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 notified as on 25.08.2021, assumes significance. ... As per Rule 8(25) it has bee....
Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala),2021 , says that when a Required Person is unable to reach the Court point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity or due to any genuine reason which the Court may decide, or the presence of the Required ... Person cannot be secured without undue delay or expenses, the Court may authorise the conduct of the proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage from the place where the Required Person is situa....
Rule 7 provides the mode of service of summons in relation to witnesses proposed to be examined or heard through electronic video linkage and Rule 8 deals with examination of persons. ... While appraising the rival contentions on the issue, Rules 7 and 8 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 notified as on 25.08.2021, assumes significance. ... As per Rule 8(25) it has bee....
(1) These Rules shall be called "Electronic Audio-Video Linkage Rules (Kerala), 2025". ... the extant Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts th (Kerala) 2021, notified on August 25 2021. ... Reasons for the Electronic Audio-Video Linkage: 10. Any other matter to be stated: I have read and understood the provisions of the Electronic Audio-Video#HL_EN....
There is no provision in the Rules enabling examination of witnesses by a counsel sitting at a Remote Point. Moreover, as per Rule 6(1), only parties to the proceedings or witnesses can move application seeking conduct of the proceedings through Electronic Video Linkage. ... to ensure seamless electronic video linkage. ... Going by Rule 3(1), Electronic Video Linkage#HL....
6. The very objective behind introduction of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules is to make courts more accessible and the proceedings, more expeditious. ... to ensure seamless electronic video linkage. ... There is no provision in the Rules enabling examination of witnesses by a counsel sitting at a Remote Point. Moreover, as per Rule 6(1), only parties to the proceedings or witnesses can move app....
Sri.Alexander Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as per Rule 5(4) of Ext.P12 – Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (“Rules:” for short) framed by this Court, the Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” must be an official of the Indian Embassy/Indian Consulate/High ... 6. ... The only exception possible to this is couched in Rule 8(23) of the “Rules” which authorises it only for “any genuine r....
Sri.Alexander Joseph – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, as per Rule 5(4) of Ext.P12 – Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (“Rules” for short) framed by this Court, the Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” must be an official of the Indian Embassy/Indian Consulate/High ... We are afraid that, as per the “Rules” it is the duty of the learned Trial Court to ensure that there is a Co-ordinator at the “Remote Point” as a normative #HL_STA....
Rule 3 of the Linkage Rules empowers the use of the electronic video linkage facility at all stages of a judicial proceeding. Under Rule 6 of the said Rules, a party to the proceedings or a witness can make an application in the form prescribed in Schedule II for a video linkage. ... Pertinently, Rule 11 of the Linkage Rules empowers the Court,....
Rule 3(1) of the Video Linkage Rules makes it clear that the electronic video linkage facility can be used at every stage of the judicial proceedings. ... through Electronic Video Linkage. ... The Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 are now framed and notified to come into force with effect from 25.8.2021. ... that both the....
Rule 8(17) and (18) deals with audio video recording of Court proceedings. The Government of Kerala recently passed Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021.
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
