Trial Courts Cannot Deny Video Conferencing Facility To Lawyers, Litigants: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman was hearing the plea of an undertrial prisoner accused in a bomb blast case. During the hearing, some of the advocates practicing in the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases at Poonamallee raised concerns regarding lack of basic facilities in the court. The Advocates informed the court that the Special Court was not permitting lawyers to appear through video conferencing.

Noting that VC facility had to be provided as per rule, the High Court asked the Special Court to allow lawyers and litigants to conduct their cases through video conferencing and to permit the VC facilities, which were already existing in the court, for the benefit of the lawyers.

“Video conferencing is presently made as a Rule by the High Court and such a facility cannot be denied by any Court. We have verified the facility available to the Special Court at Poonamallee with the Registrar (IT cum Statistics). The Registrar, on verification, informed this Court that full video conferencing is intact and therefore, the lawyers are at liberty to conduct cases through video conferencing. The Special Court in this context shall permit the lawyers and litigants to conduct cases through video conference as per Video Conference Rules,” the court said.

Regarding the prisoner's allegations of mistreatment in the prison, the bench observed that a prisoner was entitled to basic human rights and his right to education was a part of his fundamental right to personal liberty. The court also added that the Basic Principles for Treatment Of Prisoners 1990 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly specifically provided that all prisoners had the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality.

The court thus directed the prison authorities to ensure basic facilities for undertrial prisoners. Noting that the prisoner was undergoing a bachelor's degree in political science and had been denied books by the authorities, the court remarked that education would provide hope and aspiration while making purposeful use of time in detention.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. S. Nadhiya

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. P. Kumaresan, AAG, Assisted By Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, APP

Case Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 31

Case No: WP NO. 2207 of 2025