Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a 65-year-old homemaker, filed an application under Exhibit 68 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2254/2021 pending before the 14th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur, seeking to record her evidence, specifically cross-examination, through video conferencing. The application was filed in the context of a maintenance proceeding against her husband. The petitioner had earlier given her examination-in-chief physically in court, but she later shifted to Bangalore to reside with her son and claimed that traveling to Nagpur was difficult due to her age and lack of accompaniment. The trial court, by order dated 03.01.2026, rejected the application on the ground that recording evidence through video conferencing has different parameters and mere inability to travel is not a sufficient reason. Aggrieved, the wife filed the present criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal issue was whether the trial court’s rejection was sustainable in light of the High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2022, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the permissibility of video conferencing in judicial proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel argued that Rules 3(i), 6.1., 6.2., and 8.15 of the 2022 Rules permit video conferencing at all stages and specifically allow examination through video conferencing where a required person cannot be secured without undue delay or expense. It was submitted that the petitioner’s age and residence in Bangalore constituted valid grounds and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. The respondent husband opposed the petition, contending that video conferencing is not an absolute right, the rules are merely enabling provisions, and the petitioner had previously appeared physically for examination-in-chief, contradicting her claim of inability to travel. The High Court, per M.M. Nerlikar, J., analyzed the relevant provisions of the Rules of 2022 and observed that Rule 3(i) expressly permits video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings, including examination of witnesses, and Rule 8.15 authorizes the court to allow video conferencing when a person cannot be secured without undue delay or expense. The court held that the trial court’s reasoning was patently erroneous and contrary to the explicit language of the rules. The judgment further emphasized the role of technology in enhancing access to justice, reducing costs and delays, and ensuring continuity of proceedings, particularly for vulnerable persons like senior citizens. The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601, where it was held that Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mandate actual physical presence, constructive presence through a pleader is sufficient, and evidence can be recorded through video conferencing as electronic records are included within the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court had also observed that video conferencing is not virtual reality but actual reality and that permitting such mode does not violate the rights of the accused. Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the trial court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly and that the petitioner, being a senior citizen residing in another city, was entitled to have her evidence recorded through video conferencing. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 was quashed and set aside, and the application for recording evidence through video conferencing was allowed. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Video Conferencing Rules - High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2022, Rules 3(i), 6.1., 6.2., 8.15 - The Rules permit use of video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings, including examination of witnesses, and authorize video conferencing when a required person cannot be secured without undue delay or expense - Held that trial court’s rejection of application on ground that ‘recording of evidence through V.C. has different parameters and merely inability to come from Bangalore to Nagpur is not the reason’ was erroneous and contrary to the Rules (Paras 8-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Constructive Presence and Electronic Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 273; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - Section 273 CrPC permits constructive presence through pleader; evidence includes electronic records as per Section 3 of Evidence Act - Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 held that video conferencing is valid for recording evidence and does not violate rights - Held that trial court should have applied these principles and allowed the application (Para 12). C) Access to Justice - Use of Technology in Courts - Virtual Hearings - Technology improves access to justice, reduces delays, and saves costs, and is valuable for vulnerable persons like senior citizens - Held that allowing video conferencing for cross-examination of the 65-year-old petitioner residing in another city serves justice and avoids hardship, and the petition is allowed (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for recording evidence through video conferencing under the High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2022, and whether video conferencing is permissible for recording evidence in a criminal maintenance case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the 14th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and ACJM, Nagpur below Exhibit 68 in Cri. M.A. No.2254/2021. The application for recording the petitioner’s evidence through video conferencing was allowed. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Video conferencing may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings
- Evidence includes examination-in-chief and cross-examination
- If presence cannot be secured without undue delay or expense court may authorize VC
- Recording evidence through VC does not cause prejudice
- Technology serves access to justice
- Trial court's reason that recording through VC has different parameters is erroneous
- Section 273 CrPC does not require actual physical presence constructive presence suffices
- Right to fair trial not violated by VC
- Evidence can be recorded through video conferencing in criminal matters
- Supreme Court recognized video conferencing as valid mode of recording evidence in State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
