The video-con way

The video-conferencing facility in state prisons was introduced in 2003 after the Bombay high court directed the state government to set it up to try fake stamp-paper racket kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi.

Since then, extension of remand in all magistrate’s courts is mostly done through video-conferencing.  

The facility has greatly reduced the burden on the already short-staffed police force, which is often required to provide escorts for the prisoners.

Advocate Pradeep Gharat, who appeared for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the fake stamp-paper case, said, “The process has been more than fruitful. It was introduced for the first time in the state for Telgi as he was a high-risk prisoner and concern over his health was a major issue. The facility proved to be of major help, leading to his conviction in many of the cases against him.”

The same facility was recently used by the Bombay high court to conduct the proceedings to confirm the death sentence passed against terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab. The high court upheld his guilty verdict by video-conferencing. After the confirmation,  Kasab was immediately shifted back to his high-security barrack and no extra security was required.

Gharat said, “The facility should be adopted in all cases, especially terror trials in which the accused can cause mischief while being escorted to courts, where there are high chances of threat to their lives. The courts need the accused to be produced before them. If the accused want to talk to them then they can, of course, through the mike. The entire proceedings are completely legal.”

But not all advocates agree with this line of thought. Farhana Shah, who appeared for Kasab in the high court, said, “It is always good to have the accused before the court; you never know what is happening behind the video conference. There is always a doubt that the accused might be threatened. Moreover, in cases of serious offence the body language of the accused is taken into consideration.”