Criminal Courts May Allow Accused To Appear Virtually If Circumstances Warrant, Integrity Of Trial Should Not Be Compromised: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that courts should be flexible in embracing modern technology and allowing virtual appearance in criminal trials, provided they do not compromise the integrity or fairness of the trial.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that where the criminal trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through an alternative means such as vide-conferencing and representation by legal counsel, courts should be flexible in considering such prayers made by the accused.

Observing that courts should strive to strike a balance between the rights of accused and the practicalities of the legal process, Justice Sharma said,

“Thus, in cases where 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 was dealing with a plea moved by an elderly man aged 75 years accused in a rape case, challenging a trial court order directing him to attend the proceedings through physical or virtual mode as per his health conditions. It was also ordered that when appearing virtually, he would supply supporting medical documents.

It was the accused’s case that it was impossible and impractical for him to appear on each date of hearing physically due to his advanced age and health conditions.

He also contended that imposition of the condition to bring fresh medical certificate on every date of hearing in case he wished to join through Video-Conferencing was contrary to the full court orders and the Rules and Regulations applicable to the Delhi High Court and all district courts.

Justice Sharma referred to an office order issued by the Delhi High Court on June 05 directing the district courts to allow any of the parties or their counsel to appear through hybrid or video-conferencing mode without there being any prior request to the court.

The court noted that the order further directed the judicial officers to ensure that while conducting the hearings through hybrid or virtual mode, only the concerned parties or counsel remain present in court through virtual mode in certain cases, including those concerning sexual offences such.

“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 matter should be heard physically, and record reasons for such direction,” the court said.

Granting relief to the elderly accused, Justice Sharma said that courts can exercise their discretion where it becomes apparent that the presence of accused is not essential for the purpose of speedy trial.

The court added that while exercising such discretion, courts can take into account the magnitude of the sufferings of an accused and where the accused is old and suffering from ailments, insisting on his physical presence on each and every date of hearing might cause significant hardship to such an accused.

“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 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,” the court said.

Setting aside the impugned order insofar its directions regarding physical or virtual presence of the elderly accused, Justice Sharma directed the accused to remain present on every date of hearing virtually before the trial court. The court said that his counsel will remain present physically in the hearings.

“This Court has noted that it is a criminal trial and the identity of the accused is of utmost importance. Only because the accused is appearing through Video-Conferencing he will not dispute his identity during cross-examination, etc., or at any other stage of trial since he himself is seeking exemption from personal appearance in physical form and requests that he be allowed to appear through Video-Conferencing,” the court said.

It directed the accused to not seek adjournment on any date of hearing, except in most unavoidable circumstances regarding which an application in writing will be moved by his counsel.

“The accused will not be required to furnish a medical certificate of illness on every date of hearing since he has been permitted to appear through Video-Conferencing,” the court said.