Court Also Orders Better Facilities for Lawyers and Protection of Prisoners’ Rights
In a landmark decision, the Madras High Court has ruled that trial courts cannot deny lawyers and litigants the facility of video conferencing, emphasizing that virtual appearances have been established as a rule by the High Court.
“Video conferencing is presently made as a Rule by the High Court and such a facility cannot be denied by any Court,” a Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and M Jothiraman stated while hearing a case involving a remand prisoner.
Virtual Appearance Is a Right, Not a Privilege
The case originated from a plea by a prisoner who complained about prolonged solitary confinement and the difficulty in engaging a lawyer due to the far-off location of the trial court. During the proceedings, several lawyers raised concerns about inadequate facilities at the trial court in Poonamallee, including a lack of toilets, drinking water, and the court’s refusal to allow virtual appearances.
Taking a firm stand, the High Court directed that these grievances be addressed immediately. It underscored that courts must ensure basic amenities for both lawyers and litigants.
“A Prisoner is Entitled to Basic Human Rights”
The Bench also took note of the prisoner’s allegations of mistreatment, including denial of access to books, newspapers, and being subjected to beatings. The Court reminded authorities that:
“A prisoner is entitled to basic human rights and has the right to live with dignity in jail. The prisoners’ right to education is a human right grounded in the right to dignity.”
Highlighting the reformative role of education in prisons, the Court remarked that it “can provide a source of hope and aspiration whilst making purposeful use of time in detention.”
The Court further directed prison authorities to ensure the prisoner was provided with necessary study materials and to investigate claims of inhumane treatment.
Legal Representation Secured for the Prisoner
Recognizing the prisoner’s difficulty in engaging a lawyer, the High Court facilitated his legal representation by appointing senior advocate B. Mohan and ensuring that his legal fees would be covered by the District Legal Services Authority.
“The District Legal Services Authorities shall settle the legal fees both to the learned senior advocate Mr. B. Mohan and to the lawyers nominated to assist him for conducting trial in accordance with the provisions of the Rules,” the Court ordered.
With these directives, the Madras High Court has reinforced the principles of access to justice, dignified incarceration, and the use of technology to streamline judicial processes.
Case: Fakrudeen vs DIG of Prisons – Available on LAWFYI.IO
