Delhi High Court Advocates for Flexible Use of Modern Technology in Criminal Trials
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Delhi High Court has emphasized the importance of adopting modern technology in the legal process, suggesting that courts should be open to allowing virtual appearances in criminal trials, as long as the integrity and fairness of the trial remain uncompromised.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while addressing the matter, stated,
“Thus, in cases were appearing before the Court and joining the proceedings in a criminal trial through virtual modes do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial, the courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearances.”
The court’s observations came in response to a plea by a 75-year-old man accused in a rape case. The elderly accused challenged a trial court’s directive which required him to attend proceedings either physically or virtually, based on his health conditions. Furthermore, if he chose the virtual mode, he was to provide supporting medical documentation.
The accused argued that due to his advanced age and health complications, it was impractical for him to be physically present at every hearing. He also contended that the stipulation to present a fresh medical certificate for each virtual appearance was inconsistent with the full court orders and the rules applicable to the Delhi High Court and all district courts.
Justice Sharma referenced an office order from the Delhi High Court dated June 05, which directed district courts to permit parties or their counsel to appear through hybrid or video-conferencing modes without any prior request. The order also specified that during such hearings, only the concerned parties or counsel should be present virtually in certain cases, including those related to sexual offenses.
The court elaborated,
“Thus, a joint reading of the Order reflects that it would undoubtedly apply to an accused who is facing criminal trial in a case involving charge under Section 376 of IPC. The Order, however, also clarifies that the Courts can also direct the parties or their counsel to appear physically if such presence is essential or where the Court is of the opinion that the matter should be heard physically, and record reasons for such direction.”
Addressing the concerns of the elderly accused, Justice Sharma highlighted that courts have the discretion to decide when the physical presence of an accused isn’t crucial for a speedy trial. The court should consider the severity of the accused’s sufferings, especially if they are elderly and have health issues. Insisting on their physical presence for every hearing could lead to significant hardship.
The court remarked,
“Imposing conditions that compel an elderly accused, such as the 75 years old accused in the present case, to remain present physically before the court on every date of hearing rather than allowing him to join the court proceedings virtually, and to produce a medical certificate of illness every time when he wishes to appear virtually, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, will be impractical and unjust.”
Consequently, the court set aside the contested order concerning the physical or virtual presence of the elderly accused. Justice Sharma directed the accused to attend every hearing virtually, while his counsel would be physically present. The court emphasized the importance of the accused’s identity in a criminal trial and stated that the accused, even if appearing virtually, should not dispute his identity at any stage of the trial.
The court further directed the accused not to seek adjournments unless absolutely necessary and clarified that he wouldn’t need to provide a medical certificate for every hearing since he’s allowed to appear via videoconferencing.
