In a significant ruling emphasizing the rights of prisoners and access to justice, the Madras High Court has held that no court can deny the facility of video conferencing for legal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice M. Jothiraman in W.P.No.2207 of 2025, filed by Fakrudeen, a remand prisoner lodged in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Fakrudeen, aged 45, was arrested in 2013 in connection with multiple criminal cases, including those related to murder, explosives, and unlawful activities under various penal provisions. He has been in judicial custody for over 11 years as an under-trial prisoner, with his cases pending before the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee, Chennai.
Fakrudeen approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing prison authorities to remove him from solitary confinement and provide basic facilities, including access to newspapers, books for his ongoing education, and canteen services. He also alleged inhumane treatment at the hands of prison officials, including physical abuse.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The High Court considered key legal and constitutional issues, including:
Fundamental Rights of Under-Trial Prisoners:
The court reiterated that under-trial prisoners are entitled to fundamental rights, including the right to dignity and access to education.
Citing Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC 1858) and J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1993 SC 2178), the court emphasized the significance of the right to education even within prisons.
Prohibition of Solitary Confinement:
The court examined allegations of solitary confinement and held that unless authorized by law, such confinement amounts to inhumane treatment.
Prison authorities were directed to ensure that the petitioner was provided with the minimum required facilities.
Right to Video Conferencing for Legal Proceedings:
The court strongly criticized the denial of video conferencing facilities to lawyers and prisoners at the Special Court in Poonamallee.
Noting that video conferencing has become the norm under High Court guidelines, the bench held that “No court can deny video conferencing facilities to lawyers or litigants when such infrastructure is available and functional.”
The court directed the Special Court at Poonamallee to permit video conferencing for lawyers and litigants in accordance with the rules.
Delay in Trial and Legal Representation:
The court acknowledged that the prolonged delay in the trial was partly due to the reluctance of reputed lawyers to appear before the Special Court at Poonamallee, citing logistical difficulties.
To address this, the court appointed senior advocate Mr. B. Mohan as the petitioner’s legal counsel, who graciously agreed to conduct the trial.
The District Legal Services Authority was directed to settle the legal fees of Mr. Mohan and his assisting lawyers.
Court’s Directions
Immediate access to educational materials and newspapers for the petitioner inside the prison.
Prison authorities were instructed to refrain from inhumane treatment and ensure compliance with the Prison Manual.
The Special Court at Poonamallee was directed to allow video conferencing for lawyers and litigants in all cases where required.
Legal fees for the petitioner’s counsel to be settled expeditiously by the District Legal Services Authority.
Expeditious completion of trial proceedings while ensuring fair legal representation for the petitioner.
