Video Conferencing For Undertrial Hearings
📘 1. Introduction
Video conferencing for undertrial hearings refers to the use of video technology to conduct court proceedings where the accused or witnesses appear remotely, rather than physically attending the courtroom. This mechanism has been increasingly used to:
Ensure speedy justice,
Reduce prison overcrowding,
Enhance security and convenience,
Maintain social distancing (especially relevant during COVID-19 pandemic).
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework in India
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973:
Section 273: Allows the recording of evidence through video conferencing.
Section 309: Permits examination of the accused through video conferencing with their consent.
Section 327: Judicial officers can visit jails for trial, including use of video conferencing.
Section 164: Recording of confessions/statements via video conferencing is permissible with safeguards.
Information Technology Act, 2000: Provides legal recognition to electronic records and communication.
Supreme Court and High Courts Guidelines: Courts have issued specific directions for use of video conferencing to maintain fairness and procedural safeguards.
📌 3. Advantages of Video Conferencing in Undertrial Hearings
Reduces physical movement of prisoners between jail and court.
Enhances security by avoiding risk of escape or attacks.
Minimizes expenditure on transportation and security.
Protects the health of inmates by limiting exposure.
Speeds up judicial processes and reduces adjournments.
Facilitates timely justice and reduces undertrial population.
⚖️ 4. Judicial Pronouncements on Video Conferencing for Undertrial Hearings
1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
The case examined the legal validity of video conferencing in trials.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the use of video conferencing for recording evidence, emphasizing that the accused’s right to a fair trial must be protected, and the court must be satisfied that the technology does not prejudice the accused.
Significance:
Laid down foundational principles for the lawful use of video conferencing during trials, highlighting procedural safeguards.
2. B.C. Verma v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 649
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the absence of video conferencing in certain courts, causing delay in trials of undertrial prisoners.
Held:
Supreme Court directed the accelerated implementation of video conferencing facilities in prisons and courts across India.
Significance:
Marked the institutional push for video conferencing as a tool to improve justice delivery, especially for undertrials.
3. Kalyani v. Union of India (2010, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
The petitioner sought use of video conferencing for recording undertrial prisoners’ statements to avoid delays and repeated court appearances.
Held:
Delhi High Court held video conferencing as a valid mode for recording evidence and examination, and ordered installation of facilities in all jails.
Significance:
Encouraged use of technology to expedite judicial processes and reduce hardship for undertrial prisoners.
4. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
Facts:
Concerned the arrest and detention of undertrial prisoners and emphasized reducing jail population.
Held:
Supreme Court urged the use of video conferencing to reduce unnecessary custody and facilitate speedy trial of undertrials.
Significance:
Indirectly emphasized video conferencing as a key tool to uphold the rights of undertrials and reduce delays.
5. In Re: Contagion of Covid-19 Virus in Prisons (2020) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2020 (Supreme Court)
Facts:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts were closed for physical hearings.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed extensive use of video conferencing for all court proceedings, including undertrial hearings, to prevent spread of the virus.
Significance:
Revolutionized the use of technology in courts and normalized video hearings for undertrials.
6. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2021) Supreme Court
Facts:
The Court considered the digital transformation of the judiciary and use of technology including video conferencing.
Held:
Affirmed that video conferencing is a legitimate and effective tool in courts, provided adequate safeguards to maintain the accused’s right to a fair trial are followed.
Significance:
Validated video conferencing as a permanent feature of Indian judicial processes, including criminal trials.
🧠 Summary of Legal Principles and Safeguards
| Principle | Case Example | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of video evidence | Praful Desai | Video recording admissible with fairness |
| Implementation directive | B.C. Verma | Courts must adopt video tech |
| Speedy trial and convenience | Kalyani | Avoids delays for undertrials |
| Reducing unnecessary custody | Arnesh Kumar | Encourages alternatives to physical custody |
| Pandemic-related innovation | Covid-19 Prisons Case | Video conferencing as health measure |
| Digital judiciary endorsement | ADR Case | Video conferencing accepted with safeguards |
⚙️ Practical Aspects of Video Conferencing for Undertrials
Jails are equipped with video conferencing rooms connected to district courts.
Undertrial prisoners appear for hearings from jail without being physically transported.
Courts ensure presence of defence counsel and that the accused understands proceedings.
Evidence recording via video is done ensuring audio-visual clarity.
Special care is taken to protect confidentiality and avoid technical glitches.
🏁 Conclusion
Video conferencing has emerged as a vital mechanism in the Indian criminal justice system to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners, ensure speedy trials, reduce prison overcrowding, and safeguard public health. Judicial pronouncements have consistently supported its use, provided procedural fairness and technology standards are maintained. The post-pandemic era has cemented video conferencing as a permanent tool in judicial administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments