Video Conferencing Facility Cannot Be Denied By Any Court: Madras HC Directs Trial Court To Permit Lawyers & Litigants To Conduct Cases As Per Video Conference Rules

The Court directed prison authorities to ensure that fundamental rights and basic facilities are provided to the remand prisoner (Petitioner) who has been in custody for 11 years. The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the Prison authorities to remove the Petitioner from solitary confinement and to provide him basic facilities.

A Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman held, “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.”

Advocate S. Nadhiya represented the Petitioner, while Advocate P.Kumaresan appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was arrested in 2013 in connection with charges under the Explosive Substances Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. He alleged that he had been subjected to inhumane treatment, denied access to newspapers, books, and canteen facilities, and was unable to pursue his B.A. Political Science degree in prison.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court directed the prison authorities to produce the Petitioner via video conferencing. During the hearing, the Petitioner alleged that the prison authorities were closely watching him by standing near the camera and he was not in a position to speak the truth and in the event of speaking the truth, he would have to face serious consequences. Consequently, the Court ordered his physical production for examination.

The Bench also noted his submission that he was beaten up by the prison authorities at the instructions of the higher authorities.

The Court emphasised that prisoners retain fundamental rights, including the right to education and humane treatment. It referred to Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) wherein it was held that the right to education is the essence of the right to life and directly flow and interlinked with it, and life living with dignity can only be assured when there is a significant role of education.

“It is needless to state that the prison officials are responsible for safeguarding the prisoner's rights and to ensure compliance with legal provisions. Section 436(A) of the Cr.P.C plays a vital role in ensuring the release of under trial prisoners. In the present case, the petitioner/remand prisoner is languishing in prison for the past about 11 years as the trial is prolonging. The reason for increase and longevity of the criminal cases are also raised before this Court,” it remarked.

The Court also noted, “Considering the fact that the remand prisoners are languishing in prison for long number of years and the trial is unable to be concluded on account of certain practical difficulties including the fact that many of the leading lawyers are not accepting brief to conduct cases at Special Court in Poonamallee, we have requested the learned Additional Advocate General to assist the Court for the purpose of engaging a lawyer at the choice of the petitioner/remand prisoner.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “The respondents herein are directed to ensure that the fundamental rights ensured to the prisoners are protected and the facilities admissible under the rules are provided. The petitioner/remand prisoner also shall cooperate with the prison authorities for conducive atmosphere and by not developing conflict with others.”

Cause Title: Fakrudeen v. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons & Anr. (W.P.No.2207 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate S. Nadhiya

Respondents: Advocate P.Kumaresan; Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj

Click here to read/download the Order