High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts (Amendment) Rules, 2025.
The High Court of Bombay, vide Notification No. Rule/P.1603/Notification No.-28/2025 dated November 28, 2025, has amended the "High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2022" to align with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The 2022 Rules, born from the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 5/2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, permitted video conferencing for hearings, witness examination, detention authorization, and charge framing under CrPC, but Section 164 CrPC examination was allowed only in "exceptional circumstances" with reasons recorded in writing. The first production of accused mandatorily required physical presence.
Read original Notification Here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HUHWpZrBYFrHej0XmqBIA27DhFlGLyNI/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w-CKCCUOxmGKtdgAe0m0D_XUzN6t_mvR/view?usp=sharing
The 2025 Amendment introduces key definitional changes: "Advocate's remote point" (advocate's chamber/office for virtual appearance), "Audio-video electronic means" (devices for VC, recording, evidence transmission), and "Designated Place" (State-notified venues like prisons, police stations per BNSS Sections 265(3), 266(2), 308). All references to IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act now include corresponding provisions of BNS, BNSS, and BSA respectively.
Expanded Criminal Procedure Scope: Under amended Rule 11, detention, charge framing, statement recording under Section 183 BNSS (successor to Section 164 CrPC), and accused examination under Section 351 BNSS (successor to Section 313 CrPC) can now be conducted routinely through VC. Crucially, first police remand ordinarily shall not be granted through VC except in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded—an important safeguard retained. Accused examined electronically must have signature verification within three working days.
Advocate Participation: Rule 6.1.2 now explicitly permits advocates to appear from their chambers for both making submissions and examining witnesses, a significant efficiency enhancement over the 2022 framework where such flexibility was limited.
Technology Standards Upgraded: The designated VC platform must now mandatorily have end-to-end encryption, India-based data centers with disaster recovery, 500-user scalability, cause-list auto-sync with waiting lobby, master control at court end, recording/archiving facility, and complete audit trails with IP/device details. Infrastructure requirements include 50 Mbps minimum internet, HD/4K cameras, noise-canceling microphones, and power backup.
Witness Examination Controls: Evidence must be recorded only from "designated places" (except where court permits otherwise), and courts may decline VC examination if evidence cannot be effectively recorded electronically—a critical judicial discretion preserved.
Digital Conduct Rules: New Schedule I provisions require participants to keep microphones muted until called, minimize background noise, and maintain decorum. Courts can mute/remove violating participants, with potential legal consequences for offensive behavior.
The amendment operationalizes BNSS Sections 2(1)(a) (electronic communication recognition), 308 (audio-visual examination), and 530 (technology for speedier trials), building on the constitutional foundation of Articles 225 and 227 and the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai (2003) validating VC evidence under Section 273 CrPC. The Rules transform video conferencing from pandemic-era convenience into structured judicial infrastructure, though successful implementation depends on designated places having adequate infrastructure and judges being trained in digital-age coercion detection.
No comments:
Post a Comment