Video Conferencing In Trial
What is Video Conferencing in Trial?
Video conferencing in trials refers to the use of technology to enable participants in a legal proceeding—such as witnesses, accused persons, or even lawyers—to appear and participate remotely, rather than being physically present in the courtroom.
This has become an important tool in the justice system for improving access to justice, especially in situations where physical presence is difficult due to distance, security concerns, health issues, or emergencies like pandemics.
Importance and Benefits of Video Conferencing
Facilitates speedy justice by reducing delays.
Saves cost and time in transporting witnesses or accused.
Enhances security by avoiding risks involved in moving accused persons.
Increases accessibility for remote or vulnerable witnesses.
Reduces chances of witness intimidation or tampering.
Legal and Procedural Framework
In India, Sections 27, 164, and 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), along with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, provide scope for using electronic means including video conferencing.
Courts have clarified and expanded the use of video conferencing in several judgments, balancing procedural fairness with practical considerations.
Landmark Case Laws on Video Conferencing in Trials
1. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) — Supreme Court of India
Facts: The Court issued guidelines to avoid unnecessary arrests and promote speedy trials.
Significance: Although not exclusively about video conferencing, it emphasized reducing physical presence requirements where possible to avoid delays and hardship.
Takeaway: Supported the use of alternative methods like video conferencing to ensure timely justice.
2. Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India (2020) — Supreme Court of India
Facts: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court upheld the use of video conferencing for all court proceedings.
Significance: The Court observed that video conferencing is a valid mode of trial, and the right to be present can be reasonably exercised through electronic means.
Takeaway: Affirmed that trials through video conferencing are constitutionally valid and legally sound.
3. Union of India v. Harjeet Singh (2017) — Supreme Court of India
Facts: The Court recognized the use of video conferencing for recording statements of witnesses.
Significance: It observed that video conferencing can be used effectively for recording evidence without compromising fairness.
Takeaway: Established precedent for using video conferencing as a legitimate mode for evidence recording.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Shrinivas Ramchandra Vanjari (2020) — Bombay High Court
Facts: The accused was produced through video conferencing due to custody restrictions.
Significance: The Court held that the right of the accused to be physically present can be satisfied through video conferencing, ensuring the trial proceeds without undue delay.
Takeaway: Validated video conferencing as a fair alternative in custody or remand hearings.
5. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2019) — Madras High Court
Facts: The Court allowed witnesses to depose via video conferencing to protect their privacy and safety.
Significance: Emphasized the protection of vulnerable witnesses and the efficiency of video conferencing.
Takeaway: Video conferencing helps preserve the dignity and safety of witnesses without compromising justice.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) — Supreme Court of India
Facts: While predating video conferencing, this case stressed the importance of the accused's right to a fair trial, including the right to be present.
Significance: Later courts have relied on this to frame guidelines ensuring video conferencing does not infringe on this right.
Takeaway: Video conferencing must be conducted with procedural safeguards to protect fundamental rights.
7. Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2021) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts: The accused was allowed to participate in trial via video conferencing due to COVID-19 lockdowns.
Significance: The Court stressed that trials must not be stalled and video conferencing is a practical alternative.
Takeaway: Courts are adapting to modern technology to ensure justice delivery without compromising fairness.
Summary of Judicial Trends on Video Conferencing in Trials
Courts have broadly accepted video conferencing as a legitimate and effective method to conduct trials.
It is particularly endorsed to reduce delays, protect witnesses, and handle emergencies (such as pandemics).
Courts ensure the fundamental right of the accused to a fair trial is not compromised by video conferencing.
Procedural safeguards are emphasized, including the ability to cross-examine and observe demeanor.
Video conferencing reduces logistical burdens and enhances the efficiency of the judicial process.
Conclusion
Video conferencing in trials represents a significant modernization of the judicial process. Courts have recognized its potential to overcome physical and logistical challenges while upholding constitutional rights and principles of fair trial. Through progressive judicial pronouncements, video conferencing has become an indispensable tool, especially in the context of the global pandemic and beyond.
RELATED Blog
0 comments