In a groundbreaking judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice V.G. Arun, emphasized the critical role of technology in judicial proceedings, particularly for facilitating virtual cross-examinations. In the case Crl.M.C.No.10447/24, the court quashed a trial court’s order denying permission for the petitioner’s counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses through video conferencing, citing the need to embrace technological advancements in the interest of justice.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Crime No. RC 9(E)/2014, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner, Alex C. Joseph, a 60-year-old resident of New Delhi and a native of Thiruvalla, is the accused in C.C.No.1 of 2016, pending before the Special Judge, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. Joseph, represented by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., and K.S. Kiran Krishnan, sought permission for his senior counsel to cross-examine witnesses remotely due to health issues and the difficulty of traveling to Thiruvananthapuram.
The request was rejected by the trial court, prompting Joseph to approach the Kerala High Court. The CBI, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Sreelal N. Warrier, opposed the plea, arguing that physical presence in court during cross-examinations is necessary to ensure procedural integrity.
Legal Issues
The case raised a critical question: Can cross-examinations be conducted virtually under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021?
Joseph’s counsel argued that:
1. Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules allows video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings.
2. Definitions such as “Remote User,” “Electronic Video Linkage,” and “Live Link” support virtual participation by advocates.
3. The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601] establishes that video conferencing satisfies the requirement of recording evidence “in the presence of the accused.”
The prosecution, however, contended that the rules did not explicitly permit cross-examinations from a remote point and stressed the need for a physically present counsel to aid the court during such proceedings.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice V.G. Arun delivered a forward-looking judgment, recognizing the evolving role of technology in courtrooms. Highlighting the absence of specific provisions for remote cross-examinations in the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, Justice Arun stated:
“The very objective behind the introduction of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules is to make courts more accessible and proceedings more expeditious. Placing fetters on hybrid hearings or virtual participation discourages lawyers and litigants from using technology. This not only affects access to justice but also sends the misguided message that courts are reluctant to embrace technological advancements.”
The court further cited State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, asserting that virtual cross-examinations meet the requirement of evidence being recorded “in the presence of the accused” under Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s observation in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court, which highlighted that “the use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an option but a necessity.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court quashed the trial court’s order, allowing Joseph’s counsel to conduct cross-examinations via video conferencing. Justice Arun provided detailed guidelines to ensure procedural fairness:
1. A competent advocate familiar with the case must be present physically in court during the virtual cross-examination.
2. Adequate technological facilities must be available at the remote point to ensure seamless communication.
The court emphasized that granting permission for virtual cross-examinations is not a right but can be allowed when valid reasons are cited. Moreover, the court directed the Registrar General to forward the judgment to the Rules Committee for consideration of amendments to the 2021 Rules, enabling explicit provisions for remote cross-examinations.
