The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts cannot deny lawyers and litigants video conference facilities that enable them to attend court hearings virtually..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and M Jothiraman made the observation while hearing a case concerning a remand prisoner who had raised grievances regarding his continued solitary confinement in jail.The prisoner also told the Court that he was unable to engage a lawyer to represent him during the trial as the court was located in a faraway place and it was inconvenient for lawyers to go there physically. During the hearing, several lawyers made various complaints about the lack of facilities at the trial court in Poonamallee, including the lack of proper toilets, drinking water facilities and the refusal to allow lawyers to appear virtually through the use of video conference facilities. The Court has issued directions to ensure that these complaints were addressed. "One of the complaints raised is that Special Court is not permitting the lawyers to appear through video conference. Video conferencing is presently made as a Rule by the High Court and such a facility cannot be denied by any Court," the Court made it clear. .Video conferencing facility cannot be denied by any Court.Madras High Court.The Court also took serious note of the allegation that lawyers were not treated with courtesy at the trial court and were not even allowed to drink water while waiting for hours for their case to be heard."In order to ensure that the basic facilities are provided to the members of the Bar and the litigants in the Court premises, we have requested the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai to ensure that required toilet facilities are to be provided both for male and female lawyers and also to the litigants appearing before the Courts. We have requested them to provide drinking water facilities as per the requirement," the Court ordered..The petition before the Court was filed by a remand prisoner named Fakrudeen who had remained in judicial custody for around 11 years after his arrest in 2013 in connection with multiple bomb blast cases. He told the Court that he was now pursuing his second year in BA Political Science, but the prison authorities were not providing him with books to continue his education.He alleged that he was being mistreated by prison authorities, that he was beaten up on several occasions and not even allowed to read newspapers. The Court, in response, directed the prison authorities to ensure that the prisoner's fundamental rights are protected and that he is given all facilities that he is entitled to under the prevailing rules. The order was passed after the Bench directly interacted with the prisoner, following his physical production before the High Court on January 27. The Court emphasised that education can serve as a source of hope and aspiration for prison inmates."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. The aims of imprisonment include reformation and rehabilitation, apart from deterrence. The prison education can provide a source of hope and aspiration whilst making purposeful use of time in detention. It also helps them lead better lives once they are free," the Court observed. .Prison education can provide a source of hope and aspiration.Madras High Court.The Court further requested the higher prison authorities to examine Fakrudeen's allegations of being subjected to unnecessary solitary confinement and inhumane treatment.The prison authorities had countered that Fakrudeen frequently caused inconvenience to prison authorities, leading to conflicts and disciplinary actions. In response, the Court ordered the prisoner to cooperate with the authorities and not create any conflict. .The Bench also facilitated the engagement of a defence lawyer for Fakrudeen with his consent, to represent the accused prisoner before the Poonamallee trial court. The Court asked the district legal services authority to settle the legal fees payable to the defence lawyer so engaged, B Mohan. "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 legal fees is to be settled on case to case basis and in consonance with the rules," the Court ordered. .Advocate S Nadhiya appeared for the petitioner, Fakrudeen.Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan and Public Prosecutor P Kumaresan along with Advocate R Muniyapparaj appeared for the respondent authorities..[Read Order]
The Madras High Court recently observed that trial courts cannot deny lawyers and litigants video conference facilities that enable them to attend court hearings virtually..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and M Jothiraman made the observation while hearing a case concerning a remand prisoner who had raised grievances regarding his continued solitary confinement in jail.The prisoner also told the Court that he was unable to engage a lawyer to represent him during the trial as the court was located in a faraway place and it was inconvenient for lawyers to go there physically. During the hearing, several lawyers made various complaints about the lack of facilities at the trial court in Poonamallee, including the lack of proper toilets, drinking water facilities and the refusal to allow lawyers to appear virtually through the use of video conference facilities. The Court has issued directions to ensure that these complaints were addressed. "One of the complaints raised is that Special Court is not permitting the lawyers to appear through video conference. Video conferencing is presently made as a Rule by the High Court and such a facility cannot be denied by any Court," the Court made it clear. .Video conferencing facility cannot be denied by any Court.Madras High Court.The Court also took serious note of the allegation that lawyers were not treated with courtesy at the trial court and were not even allowed to drink water while waiting for hours for their case to be heard."In order to ensure that the basic facilities are provided to the members of the Bar and the litigants in the Court premises, we have requested the Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai to ensure that required toilet facilities are to be provided both for male and female lawyers and also to the litigants appearing before the Courts. We have requested them to provide drinking water facilities as per the requirement," the Court ordered..The petition before the Court was filed by a remand prisoner named Fakrudeen who had remained in judicial custody for around 11 years after his arrest in 2013 in connection with multiple bomb blast cases. He told the Court that he was now pursuing his second year in BA Political Science, but the prison authorities were not providing him with books to continue his education.He alleged that he was being mistreated by prison authorities, that he was beaten up on several occasions and not even allowed to read newspapers. The Court, in response, directed the prison authorities to ensure that the prisoner's fundamental rights are protected and that he is given all facilities that he is entitled to under the prevailing rules. The order was passed after the Bench directly interacted with the prisoner, following his physical production before the High Court on January 27. The Court emphasised that education can serve as a source of hope and aspiration for prison inmates."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. The aims of imprisonment include reformation and rehabilitation, apart from deterrence. The prison education can provide a source of hope and aspiration whilst making purposeful use of time in detention. It also helps them lead better lives once they are free," the Court observed. .Prison education can provide a source of hope and aspiration.Madras High Court.The Court further requested the higher prison authorities to examine Fakrudeen's allegations of being subjected to unnecessary solitary confinement and inhumane treatment.The prison authorities had countered that Fakrudeen frequently caused inconvenience to prison authorities, leading to conflicts and disciplinary actions. In response, the Court ordered the prisoner to cooperate with the authorities and not create any conflict. .The Bench also facilitated the engagement of a defence lawyer for Fakrudeen with his consent, to represent the accused prisoner before the Poonamallee trial court. The Court asked the district legal services authority to settle the legal fees payable to the defence lawyer so engaged, B Mohan. "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 legal fees is to be settled on case to case basis and in consonance with the rules," the Court ordered. .Advocate S Nadhiya appeared for the petitioner, Fakrudeen.Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan and Public Prosecutor P Kumaresan along with Advocate R Muniyapparaj appeared for the respondent authorities..[Read Order]
