Advancing Justice Delivery with Videoconferencing Technology

India has over 4 crore cases pending across its courts. Producing an undertrial prisoner for a routine remand hearing can consume the time of a dozen police personnel, carry significant security risks, and cost thousands of rupees – only for the hearing to last a few minutes. Videoconferencing technology directly addresses this kind of systemic inefficiency. Over the past two decades, India’s criminal justice system has progressively integrated audio-visual technology into courtroom proceedings – a shift that accelerated dramatically during COVID-19 and has now been permanently institutionalized through legislative reform.

How videoconferencing entered the Indian courtroom 🔗

The use of videoconferencing in Indian courts was not always straightforward. Early on, there was genuine legal ambiguity about whether a witness or accused appearing via video link satisfied the requirement of “presence” under Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandated that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused.

That ambiguity was conclusively resolved by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003). The Court held that the term “presence” does not mean only physical presence in flesh and blood, and expressly permitted the use of videoconferencing for recording evidence in criminal trials. This judgment opened the door for widespread adoption and also laid down a clear procedural framework – the accused must be present during the conference, must be permitted to cross-examine the witness, and an authorised officer must be physically present with any witness appearing from abroad to administer the oath and ensure no prompting takes place.

Following this, courts across the country began accepting video link testimony in a range of matters, from civil disputes and matrimonial cases to serious criminal proceedings. Video conferencing is now used in bail applications, remand hearings, witness examinations, and cross-examinations, covering virtually every stage of a criminal proceeding where oral participation is required.

The legal framework under BNSS 2023 🔗

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – which replaced the colonial-era CrPC – has institutionalized videoconferencing in a comprehensive and legally binding way for the first time. Several provisions work together to form this framework:

Section 2(1)(a) formally recognizes electronic communication as a valid official mode of legal interaction. Section 308 allows the recording of witness statements and examination of accused persons through audio-visual electronic means. Section 355 permits accused individuals to attend hearings via videoconferencing, reducing the logistical burden of physical production. Section 530 is the cornerstone – it mandates the use of technology across all stages of a trial, from issuing digital summons and warrants to conducting examinations, recording evidence, and delivering proceedings electronically. Together, extensive provisions under Sections 193, 227, 251, 254, 262, 308, 316, 336, 355, and 392 collectively facilitate remote depositions and virtual courtrooms.

More recently, the Delhi High Court notified the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 in July 2025, which came into force on 9 July 2025. These rules apply to the Delhi High Court, all district courts, and tribunals under its jurisdiction. They provide detailed operational protocols – specifying how coordinators must be present at both the court point and the remote location, how identity verification must be conducted, how multi-point connections must be established when an accused is in custody, and how cybersecurity incidents must be reported and handled.

Applications across criminal proceedings 🔗

Remand hearings and custody proceedings 🔗

One of the most practically significant uses of videoconferencing is in remand and custody hearings. In a country where around 75% of the prison population consists of undertrial remand prisoners, producing accused persons before courts for every scheduled hearing is a logistical challenge of enormous scale. Transporting prisoners carries security risks, administrative costs, and in some documented cases, undertrials have been murdered during custody transfers. Videoconferencing eliminates these risks by connecting jails directly to courtrooms. VC facilities are already enabled between court complexes and corresponding jails across states like Madhya Pradesh, facilitating remand hearings, evidence recording, and judicial business without physical transportation.

Under the Delhi High Court’s 2025 Rules, remand hearings under BNSS Section 187 can be conducted via videoconferencing, with the exception of the first physical appearance which remains mandatory.

Witness testimony and cross-examination 🔗

Recording witness testimony is one of the most time-consuming and operationally difficult aspects of a criminal trial. Witnesses may reside in other states or countries, may face security threats, or may be elderly or infirm. Indian courts have permitted the recording of testimony and cross-examination of witnesses residing abroad – in one notable instance, the court allowed the testimony and cross-examination of a 54-year-old witness based in the United States. The Supreme Court has also allowed videoconferencing in matrimonial cases, subject to the parties’ consent.

Under BNSS Section 530, examinations of complainants, accused, and witnesses through videoconferencing must be recorded electronically, with statements stored using secure digital platforms. This creates a reliable record that can be referred to at later stages of the trial.

Bail hearings and emergency proceedings 🔗

Bail hearings require prompt judicial attention, particularly where an accused is in custody. Videoconferencing ensures that bail applications can be heard without delay, even when the accused cannot be physically produced due to logistical or medical reasons. Courts have the discretion under BNSS to exempt persons from physical attendance in cases of illness or where attendance would cause disproportionate hardship.

The scale of implementation in India 🔗

All 25 High Courts have implemented Video Conferencing rules, and under their jurisdiction, all district courts have adopted VC rules. The Department of Justice reports that since the COVID-19 lockdown began, district and subordinate courts heard over 2.73 crore cases through videoconferencing, High Courts heard over 95 lakh cases, and the Supreme Court held over 10 lakh hearings via VC – a combined total of more than 3.68 crore cases handled remotely.

Infrastructure has been expanded substantially. Over 94% of prisons in India are currently videoconference-enabled, with 1,272 out of 1,350 prisons equipped with VC facilities. Funds have been sanctioned for VC equipment across 14,443 courtrooms, and 2,506 VC cabins are being set up. India is also developing a domestic videoconferencing platform called Bharat VC, shortlisted under the Atma Nirbhar App Challenge, to provide a uniform and sovereign VC platform for judicial use.

Innovative outreach efforts have also emerged. The Uttarakhand High Court has launched mobile e-courts vans equipped with Wi-Fi and videoconferencing equipment to serve remote hill areas with limited court access. A similar initiative was implemented by the Telangana High Court.

The computerized courtroom: beyond videoconferencing 🔗

Videoconferencing is one component of a broader shift toward the fully computerized courtroom – a concept where every element of a court proceeding is digitally integrated. Under the eCourts program outlined in BNSS Section 530, this includes complete digitization of court records, filings, and administrative processes. The BNSS also mandates audio-video recording of searches and seizures under Section 185 and requires forensic videography of serious crime scenes under Section 176(3).

Real-time recording of court proceedings, digital evidence management through hash values and documented chain of custody, and the electronic service of summons and warrants via email or SMS are all part of this ecosystem. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 – which replaced the Indian Evidence Act – electronic and digital records are explicitly treated as documents, with formal requirements for computer-output certificates to ensure authenticity of electronically produced evidence.

The Delhi High Court’s 2025 Rules also extend digital proceedings to Legal Aid Clinics, Lok Adalats, and Jail Adalats, allowing individuals in custody to be examined remotely by Legal Services Authority officials – with orders from those sessions carrying the same legal force as regular proceedings.

Benefits and continuing challenges 🔗

The advantages of videoconferencing in criminal justice are well-documented. It reduces the cost and time of producing witnesses and accused persons, expands access to justice for litigants in geographically remote areas, protects vulnerable witnesses – including victims of sexual crimes and elderly persons – by allowing participation from safe and familiar environments, and ensures continuity of judicial proceedings during crises like pandemics or natural disasters.

That said, challenges remain. Infrastructure penetration is uneven – while prisons are largely VC-enabled, fewer than 20% of courtrooms had the necessary equipment as of 2020, though this gap is being addressed through the eCourts Phase III funding. Concerns around fair trial rights have also been raised – particularly around the ability of accused persons to communicate confidentially with their lawyers during virtual proceedings, the reliability of cross-examination when the court cannot physically observe a witness’s demeanour, and the risk of digital exclusion for parties who lack access to technology or digital literacy. Courts have responded by building in procedural safeguards: coordinator requirements, identity verification protocols, mandatory physical presence for first remand hearings, and the court’s retained discretion to require physical attendance when justice demands it.

What do you think? As videoconferencing becomes a permanent feature of criminal trials in India, should the first remand hearing – currently mandated to be physical – remain so as a safeguard, or can technology adequately protect an accused person’s rights even at that critical first stage? And with over 4 crore cases pending in Indian courts, is the pace of courtroom digitization fast enough to make a meaningful dent in judicial delays?

References

1. https://lawnotes.co/electronic-trial-under-the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-bnss-a-step-towards-digital-justice/
2. https://goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article74.htm
3. https://www.myadvo.in/blog/video-conferencing-in-india-courts
4. https://law.asia/bnss-criminal-justice-reforms/
5. https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/how-bnss-2023-is-revolutionizing-indian-justice-system
6. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/11/delhi-high-court-electronic-evidence-video-conferencing-rules-2025/
7. https://ecommitteesci.gov.in/project/video-conferencing-system/
8. https://www.jurishour.in/notification/electronic-evidence-video-conferencing-rules-2025/
9. https://doj.gov.in/video-conferencing/
10. https://humanrightsinitiative.org/download/1619586831Disconnected%20Videoconferencing%20And%20Fair%20Trial%20Rights.pdf
11. https://www.legalvidur.com/blog/how-digital-evidence-is-changing-indian-courts