Kerala High Court: Trial Courts May Permit Cross-Examination Through Video Conferencing Upon Valid Grounds

Post By 24law
January 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has emphasized that trial courts possess the authority to permit cross-examination through video conferencing when valid and substantial reasons are presented. This landmark judgment, delivered by Justice V.G. Arun, quashed an order of the Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which had denied a petition seeking such permission.

Context of the Case

The petitioner, Alex C. Joseph, aged 60, is an accused in a case pending before the Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Due to health issues and the inability of his Senior Counsel to travel to Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner sought permission for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses via video conferencing. The Special CBI Court rejected the application, leading to the filing of a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice V.G. Arun held that while the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 ("Rules") do not specifically provide for cross-examination from a remote point by an advocate, such an omission should not prevent courts from granting permission if justified. The Court reasoned that:

Objective of the Rules: The Rules aim to facilitate seamless virtual communication and expeditious judicial proceedings. Granting permission for video-conferenced cross-examination aligns with this objective.
Rule 10: This provision permits advocates to address arguments from a remote point without requiring a coordinator’s presence. The Court extended this rationale to cross-examination, noting that technology enables effective remote participation while ensuring procedural fairness.
Supreme Court Precedent: The Court relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], wherein the Supreme Court recognized video conferencing as a valid and effective means of recording evidence, satisfying the requirement of the accused’s presence under Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Right to Counsel: The omission of a specific rule for video-conferenced cross-examination should not hinder the accused’s right to avail services of their counsel of choice, especially in circumstances necessitating remote participation.
Efficiency and Justice: Allowing cross-examination through video conferencing would ensure the expeditious disposal of cases and reduce unnecessary delays caused by repeated adjournments.

Conditions for Granting Permission

The High Court underlined that granting such permission is not an absolute right but must be based on valid reasons. The trial court, while permitting cross-examination via video conferencing, should ensure:

Adequate facilities are available at the remote point.
A competent advocate, well-versed in the facts of the case, is physically present in the courtroom to assist the process.