Court’s decision
The Karnataka High Court delivered a significant ruling on the permissibility of remote testimony in criminal proceedings, holding that the trial court’s rigid reliance on Rule 5.3.1 of the Karnataka High Court (Video Conferencing) Rules, 2020, resulted in an unjust refusal to allow the complainant to depose through video conferencing. The Court held that procedural rules are intended to facilitate justice rather than hinder it, observing that “technical restrictions cannot override the substantive right of a witness to be heard.” It emphasized that the Rules must be harmoniously interpreted with the Code of Criminal Procedure and constitutional principles of fair trial and access to justice.
The High Court quashed the trial court’s order, noting that the trial court had mechanically applied Rule 5.3.1 without appreciating the judicial pronouncements interpreted by the Supreme Court. It clarified that Rule 5.3.1 must be read in context and is directory, not mandatory, especially where the witness resides outside India, making physical appearance impractical. The Court restored the application seeking permission to depose through video conferencing and directed the trial court to reconsider it afresh on merits.
The Court also stressed that modern judicial practice must adapt to digital platforms and that technology aids efficiency rather than undermining evidentiary standards. It reiterated that the accused’s rights remain fully protected because cross-examination can also be effectively conducted via video conferencing.
Facts
The complainant, who had initiated proceedings under the penal law before the trial court, sought permission to depose through video conferencing as she was residing in the United States. Her application relied on the practicality, feasibility, and fairness of virtual examination in light of the geographical constraints. The trial court rejected the application solely on the basis of Rule 5.3.1 of the Karnataka High Court Video Conferencing Rules, which prohibits remote recording of evidence from outside India unless permitted by specific directions. The complainant thereafter approached the High Court seeking to overturn the rejection, arguing that the trial court had misapplied the Rules.
The prosecution supported the complainant’s plea, contending that compelling physical presence would impose an unreasonable burden. The accused opposed the request, asserting that the Rules clearly barred such recording from a foreign country. They argued that the trial court’s decision was legally correct. These conflicting submissions brought the matter before the High Court for judicial scrutiny.
Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether Rule 5.3.1 of the Karnataka High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020, absolutely prohibits the examination of a witness residing outside India through video conferencing. The secondary issue was whether the trial court acted legally in rejecting the complainant’s plea solely on this basis. A related issue was whether the interpretation of the Rule should be guided by earlier Supreme Court decisions endorsing technological facilitation in trial processes. The Court also considered whether compelling physical appearance of a foreign-resident witness could defeat the principles of access to justice.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court’s interpretation of Rule 5.3.1 was overly literal and contrary to the purpose of video conferencing provisions. The petitioner emphasized that the Rule was intended to prevent misuse of cross-border digital links but not to bar genuine witnesses facing unavoidable difficulties. The petitioner submitted that courts across India have permitted virtual testimony in appropriate cases, particularly when witnesses live abroad and physical appearance is impractical. The petitioner highlighted Supreme Court decisions encouraging the use of technology to aid justice and asserted that the trial court failed to apply these guiding principles.
The petitioner contended that forcing her to travel from the United States would cause extreme hardship and delay the trial indefinitely. It was further argued that the accused would suffer no prejudice because cross-examination could be effectively conducted via secure video conferencing with adequate safeguards. The petitioner therefore urged that substantive justice must prevail over procedural rigidity.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent argued that Rule 5.3.1 specifically bars recording of evidence from a foreign country unless the Rules are amended or special authorisation exists. They maintained that the trial court correctly applied the Rule and that the High Court should not dilute an explicit procedural mandate. According to the respondent, the Rule was enacted to ensure the authenticity of proceedings and prevent jurisdictional complications arising from foreign locations. The respondent submitted that allowing such evidence could create future evidentiary disputes.
The respondent further argued that video conferencing from abroad raises concerns regarding oath administration, identity verification, and security of the process. They asserted that the High Court should not interfere with a lawful order that adhered to the Rules. Finally, the respondent submitted that the inconvenience to the complainant could not justify overriding statutory restrictions.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the Karnataka High Court Video Conferencing Rules, CrPC provisions relating to examination of witnesses, and constitutional doctrines on fair trial and access to justice. It noted that while procedural rules guide the manner of recording evidence, they must be interpreted to further justice. The Court referred to Supreme Court rulings emphasizing flexibility in adopting technology. It reiterated that the Rules are meant to facilitate, not frustrate, effective trial management. The Court held that the trial court erred in presuming that Rule 5.3.1 imposed an absolute prohibition, whereas its language and context suggest a directory, not mandatory, character.
The Court reasoned that the CrPC allows courts to record evidence through commissions or alternative modes when warranted, indicating legislative intent to avoid undue hardship for witnesses. Reading the Rules in harmony with the CrPC, the Court concluded that virtual testimony is constitutionally permissible and consistent with principles of fairness. The judgment underscores that procedural rigidity cannot impede the justice delivery system in a digital era.
Precedent analysis
The Court analysed Supreme Court decisions where video-based cross-examination and remote testimony were permitted in appropriate circumstances. It referred to earlier apex court pronouncements recognizing that the justice system must embrace technology and that effective cross-examination can be achieved through video conferencing without compromising due process. The Court noted that these precedents encourage flexibility, particularly to address difficulties faced by witnesses residing abroad. It also referred to decisions holding that procedural rules are directory unless they explicitly impose penal consequences or affect substantive rights.
The High Court distinguished cases cited by the respondent, observing that none imposed a blanket prohibition on recording testimony from abroad. Instead, the precedents advocate judicial discretion based on fairness and convenience. Thus, the Court held that the trial court’s narrow view conflicted with well-established jurisprudence.
Court’s reasoning
The Court reasoned that Rule 5.3.1 cannot be read in isolation but must be construed purposively. It emphasized that virtual examination had become an essential judicial tool, particularly after the nationwide adoption of digital hearings. The Court held that when a witness resides outside India, compelling physical presence may render justice impossible. Therefore, reading the Rule as a total prohibition would defeat legislative intent and constitutional guarantees.
The Court further reasoned that adequate safeguards—such as secure links, verification protocols, and supervision by a designated official—can ensure the integrity of remote testimony. It held that the accused’s rights remain protected because cross-examination is fully achievable through virtual means. The Court concluded that the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly and that its order required interference.
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the trial court’s rejection of the application for virtual deposition and restored the application for reconsideration. It directed that the trial court evaluate the request afresh with due regard to Supreme Court precedents, technological feasibility, and the overarching goal of securing justice. The ruling reinforces that procedural rules are not obstacles but facilitators of justice, and that courts must remain adaptive to ensure fairness in an increasingly digital environment.
Implications
This judgment has significant implications for criminal trials involving non-resident witnesses. It affirms that courts can and must interpret video conferencing rules pragmatically to prevent procedural hardship. It signals a judicial shift toward embracing technology as a core component of fair trial rights. Moreover, it reassures complainants and prosecution witnesses residing abroad that their testimony can be secured without unreasonable burden. The judgment strengthens the efficiency of criminal justice, reduces delays, and aligns the justice system with global digital standards.
