In Rameshan v. State of Kerala, the High Court permitted an accused working abroad to reply to the trial court’s questions under Section 351 BNSS through videoconferencing or an authenticated written statement. Justice C.S. Dias said there is “no legal impediment” in allowing remote or written responses.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has granted major relief to a man working abroad by allowing him to answer a trial court’s questions remotely in an ongoing excise case.
The case highlights how courts are now embracing technology in line with the new Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The man, employed overseas, was facing trial before a Kollam sub-court. Earlier, the trial court had permitted him to skip personal appearance during the proceedings.
However, when the stage came to record his statement under Section 351 of the BNSS — a provision that allows the court to question the accused about evidence against them — the trial court declined to extend that exemption.
Aggrieved by this, the accused approached the High Court, seeking permission to respond through his lawyer or by any other remote method.
On October 22, Justice C.S. Dias ruled in his favour and clarified that the accused could either send his answers in a written format or appear through videoconferencing to respond to the trial court’s questions.
Justice Dias relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Basavaraj R. Patil & Ors v. State of Karnataka, which had recognised that in exceptional situations, courts could allow accused persons to file written replies instead of appearing in person, provided that the written statements are properly verified and authenticated.
The High Court also referred to Section 351(5) of the BNSS, which expressly states that a court may
“permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.”
Justice Dias observed that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to significant technological advancements in judicial functioning, and now most courts are equipped with video-link facilities.
Kerala, in particular, has already notified the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, which allow examination of accused persons, framing of charges, and filing of documents through electronic means.
Recognising this transition, the court noted:
“It is also relevant to note that sub-section (2) of Section 251 of BNSS explicitly permits charges to be read and explained to an accused either physically or through audio/video electronic means. The confluence of Section 351 BNSS with the Linkage and Filing Rules embodies the progressive legislative and judicial policy to integrate technology to enhance access to justice.”
After analysing the relevant provisions and precedents, Justice Dias held that there is no bar on allowing such a procedure.
He remarked:
“I don’t find any legal impediment in permitting the petitioner to answer the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting the procedure laid down in Section 351 (5) BNSS and Basavaraj R. Patil’s case or by getting his answers recorded via the electronic video linkage under the Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per the procedure under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules. It would be up to the petitioner to choose the method.”
Accordingly, the High Court directed the accused to file a memo before the trial court within two weeks indicating his choice — whether he wishes to give written answers or participate through video conferencing.
The court also laid out the procedure to be followed depending on the method chosen:
- If the accused opts to file written answers, the format and safeguards mentioned in Basavaraj R. Patil must be observed, including filing an affidavit explaining the hardship of attending in person and confirming that no prejudice would result.
- If he chooses video conferencing, the trial court must follow the procedures laid down in Rule 8 of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, ensuring proper recording and signature authentication.
Through this ruling, the High Court has reaffirmed that modern technology can and should be used to make justice more accessible and practical, especially for those who are unable to attend court due to genuine reasons like employment abroad.
The order effectively brings together the flexibility of the BNSS and Kerala’s digital court infrastructure, promoting a progressive shift toward hybrid hearings and remote participation.
Case Title:
Rameshan v State of Kerala
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On BNSS
