VIRTUAL JUSTICE: THE LEGAL PROCESS AND VALIDITY OF VIDEO CONFERENCING

INTRODUCTION

For decades now, the Indian justice system has struggled with the twin burdens of chronic pendency and the practical challenge of ensuring physical appearance of parties, witnesses, and the accused. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) which repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 respectively represent an unmistak fork in the road for technology-enabled justice. Several institutions of the judiciary have come to recognize VC as a valid mode of holding trials, recording evidence and examining witnesses.

This paper assesses the legal enforceability of transacting criminal trials through video conferencing as well as the procedural framework for conducting same through the framework of the BNSS and the BSA. It investigates the statutory basis, sketches existing case law that created the anticipation for virtual trials and juxtaposes the procedural safeguards and regulatory architecture created through the High Court rules of Bihar and Sikkim. The paper thereafter explores the lacunae, if any, and requisite reforms to ensure that the much talked about digital justice should not come at the expense of procedural fairness.

Defined terms in the context of this paper are: audio-video electronic means (as defined under Section 2 of BNSS in relation to the use of any communications device for purposes of video conferencing, recording, ID, search, seizure or evidence), live link (audio-visual communication in real time between a court point and a remote point), court point (Physical or virtual location of the court) and remote point (location the person appears from).

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

THE STATUTORY FOUNDATION: BNSS, 2023

The BNSS is the clearest legislative recognition of virtual trials within Indian criminal law. Section 530 of the BNSS[1] (which generally mirrors the contents of the earlier Section 273 of the CrPC) states that any or all of the proceedings in any trial, inquiry or other proceedings including the recording of evidence or of the examination of the witnesses or any appellate hearing or other proceedings of the case can be conducted in electronic form, be it by electronic communication or audio-visual electronic means.

The provision is thus comprehensive in its reach. It doesn’t specify the nature of the offence or the category of accused. It applies to trials in all Courts whether summary trial, warrant case trial, sessions trial or before the Court of appeal. This provision is a fundamental departure from the CrPC as this law never provided for video conferencing explicitly. Courts had to interpret the provisions of section 273 to infer that it stood for such powers[2].

Apart from section 530 the BNSS places audio-video electronic devices in at least 24 other provisions: Sections 54, 63, 64, 70, 71, 94, 154, 183, 187, 193, 209, 227, 230, 231, 251, 254, 262, 265, 266, 308, 310, 316, 336, 355, 356, 392 and 530. Some of the most important sections are:

Section 187 Accused in judicial custody could be brought in remand through VC except first appearance which would be physical. Section 251 Charges could be framed and explained to accused virtually and plea could be recorded through AV equipment. Section 308 Accused in judicial custody would be physically or virtually present during recording of evidence. Section 316 Examination of accused in judicial custody may be virtual too and Aadhar verification required within 72hrs. Section 392 Judgement could be spoken to in judicial custody to the accused through VC.

THE EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION: BSA, 2023

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 thus alters the evidentiary charter to make room for electronically recorded evidence/evidence in electronic form[3]. Section 2(e) of the BSA defines evidence as any statement which is given in electronic form, which is a significant departure from the Indian Evidence Act 1872, where oral evidence was confined to statements made Bonafide before the court.

Section 63 of the BSA (replacing Section 65-B of the IEA) provides rules for admissibility of the electronic record.[4] The computer output whether it is stored on optical media, semiconductor memory or otherwise will be a document in proceedings if certain requirements have been satisfied: the computer was used regularly, information was regularly given into the computer and it was used properly during the relevant time period, and the output paper reproduces a computer-produced document fed into the computer. Furthermore, it must be shown that the computer was under the charge of the individual providing the certificate, that an expert agrees with the hash value and that the algorithm used.

A combined BNSS and BSA therefore establishes a system where, on the one hand, authorisation for the conduct of proceedings is given electronically by the BNSS and, on the other, the evidence adduced or recorded in those proceedings is legally valid and is not subordinate, by way of secondary evidence, to evidence in other media.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND HIGH COURT RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY

The rulemaking authority on video conferencing in district courts is derived from Article 227 of the Constitution of India[5], which grants high courts a general power of superintendence of all courts. Several high courts have taken advantage of this power to promulgate elaborate rules.

By a Gazette Notification dated 18 November 2025, the High Court of Judicature at Patna notified the Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means for the District Courts of Bihar Rules, 2025 (Bihar VC Rules) which applied to all district courts and sub-divisional courts of Bihar for their use. It came into force on the date of publication. The High Court of Sikkim also issued the Sikkim High Court and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025 (Sikkim VC Rules) on 2 July 2025 which applied to all courts and tribunals under the court ‘s jurisdiction.

Both repeal the preceding Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 (adopted during the pandemic by the Court) and set forth a much clearer BNSSs -aligned structure.[6]

MAIN ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES

JUDICIAL GENESIS: FROM PRAFUL DESAI TO THE BNSS ERA

Even long before the advent of the BNSS, the seeds of virtual justice were laid down by the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003)[7]. This was essentially a question of whether the recording of evidence via video conferencing was in consonance with the Rule of ‘presence’ under Section 273, CrPC. The Court ruled: ‘presence’ under s.273 was not restricted to mere presence in fact. Virtual presence by video conferencing furthered the object of the provision; the accused could view the witness, perceive demeanour, listen to the testimony and give instructions to their counsels for cross-examination, just as surely as they could in a crowded court with poor visibility.

“Recording of evidence by video conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the Accused. The Accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them… All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video conferencing.” — Supreme Court in Praful B. Desai (2003)

This judgement was revolutionary. It set about show that ‘presence’ is a functional and purposive notion, rather than simply physical. It also made a tacit acknowledgment that the right to cross-examine an essential facet of the fair trial- was no compromised by the use of videoconferencing.

Following Praful Desai, the Supreme Court set out preliminary general procedures for video conferencing of testimony in respect of criminal trials in Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal,(2015)[8]: Confrontation of witnesses should occur, the witness must be tested and not-Coached, oath must be administered by the court coordinator, and the transcript in its entirety signed by witness and coordinator. This set of procedures was assimilated wholesale into the Bihar and Sikkim VC Rules.

Similarly, in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India, (2023),[9] the Supreme Court directed for digitisation of judicial infrastructure including equipment such as audio-visual equipment for recording evidence and gave a constitutional direction for the courts to invest in VC infrastructure( which was not only permissive but a constitutional obligation of courts to make such digital infrastructure a reality.

POST-BNSS JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Already some High Courts have ruled on the validity and extent of VC proceedings under the BNSS. The Kerala High Court in V. Sasikumar v. K. Sathyendran and Ors., examined a witness ‘s infirm testification through electronic video linkage in accordance with the BNSS and concluded that this was entirely lawful.[10] Reading Section 530 along with an enlarged sense of evidence in the BSA, the court declared that when the proper procedures are in motion the admissibility of virtual testimony is at par with physical testimon Part I, Section 530 of the C do.

In the case XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT,[11] the Delhi High Court extended these to the use of Video Conferencing Rules 2025 so that the testimony of the victim-witness[12], where necessary, could be taken via Video Conferencing (VC). The court held that in cases where the victim-witness was especially likely to be vulnerable ' by reason of his age, disability or the trauma of the underlying circumstances’, an examination over VC could not only be permitted but may be a matter of judicial discretion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bharatlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, observed the technological mechanisms for implementing BNSS provisions in trial courts was digitally integrated; the infrastructure created to implement the SC direction was found to be sufficient to implement the statutory direction of electronic proceedings.[13]

THE PROCEDURAL ARCHITECTURE UNDER STATE VC RULES

The Bihar and Sikkim VC Rules set out an intricate procedural pathway for holding a virtual trial.[14] To see just how effective this architecture is, one must first understand how it hangs together.

Initiation and Request: In criminal proceeding, any party or witness may make a request for VC proceedings in the prescribed Form (Schedule II) by stating the case number, court point, remote point, section 3, remote point participant(s) and their designation, reasons to seek VC, if desired. The Court may fix a schedule of VC session to be observed.

Coordinators: at the court point, the person to be examined and the remote point, a coordinator must be designated. The rules specify a comprehensive matrix of coordinators, depending on the location of the person to be examined: jail superintendents for prisons, medical superintendents for hospitals and Indian Embassies for witnesses outside the country. The function of the coordinator is to identify the person to be examined, prevent coaching and tutoring and secure the proceedings.

Examination procedure to be followed: Where the person is to be examined, prior to the commencement of the examination, such person shall be required to present in proof of his identity a document issued by the government. The oath shall be administered by the Co-coordinator at the court point. The witnesses are usually examined from a separate place (an area specified, for example a district VC room, police station VC room or legal aid center), and not from their house, unless the court allow to do so on the ground that the witness is suffering from sickness/physical disability.

Transcript and Signature The court reads the transcript of the record to the witness after/if the hearing is over and gets the signature of the witness. When digital signatures are fetched at both ends, they are embedded, but if not, the transcript is printed, signed, scanned, sent and the hard copy is posted by speed post in three days.

Showing Documents: When the document is to be shown to the witness a remote showing of the document can occur by transmission through the document visualiser, electronically by the VC platform or official email. A hard copy, initially counter signed by the witness and the Co-ordinator is then sent to the court.

Security & Decorum: All proceedings of the VC shall happen on the Microsoft Teams, Zoom or any approved (by the High Court or the government) platform with end-to-end encryption. Recording of the proceedings is not permitted by anyone. Decorum: All persons attending the court must be dressed professionally, mute their microphones when not speaking, not make background noise and only use cell phones in airplane mode. Anyone breaching the decorum may be directed to be removed.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION

STRENGTHS OF THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK

The greatest advantage of the BNSS-BSA-VC Rules as a framework is its representational clarity. While in a pre-BNSS period the Court had to massage the wording of Sec. 273 CrPC to justify ‘authorising’ by way of video conferencing, the BNSS statutorily authorizes its usage in several different sections.

The BSA‘s extension of what can be deemed to be ‘evidence’ by way of transfer of electronically given statements is otherwise arguably more important: it rectifies the original blip of the old Evidence Act that made no express permissible way of allowing oral evidence over a video conference, even while judges adopted it in their interpretation. Now, under s 268B, a statement given electronically is in law oral evidence. This being in parity with the two codes of procedure and evidence, is a noteworthy legislative leap.

The coordinator system, on which the Bihar and Sikkim Rules rely, attempts to address one of the most persistent criticisms of remote testimony to “coaching” of witnesses.[15] While the Bihar and Sikkim Rules do entrust the coordinator with an obligation not to prompt or tutor, the presence of the coordinator at the remote point would seem to be intended to replicate control at the courtroom. The 360-degree room scan, ahead of examination (a requirement recommended in the academic commentary on the rules) would seem to enhance this safeguard.

For witnesses at risk of emotional harm such as sexual offence victims, children, the elderly and infirm the VC framework provides access to justice without the collateral injury of physical presence in court. The Delhi High Court ‘s acceptance in XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT that VC examination could be better for such witnesses reflects a certain judicial maturity and an understanding that the interest of the vulnerable witness in avoiding emotional trauma is a concern of the Court.

IDENTIFIED GAPS AND REGULATORY LOOPHOLES

The most obvious lacunae of the current structure are, or, to put it more directly, the lack of a cohesive national standard. While each High Court makes its own rules, there exists a somewhat fractured mosaic of procedures. A witness away in the nest of an under-developed VC rules state or appearing in a state with better-developed rules may be subject to inconsistent standards. We need an All-India standard operating procedure (SOP), as suggested by the authors writing the BNSS.[16]

The digital divide is another systemic access-to-justice issue. The rules assume the existence of Sarkari VC centres in District and sub-divisional levels. But in practice, many subordinate courts especially in rural and semiurban locations are unable to get decent bandwidth, hardware or technical support. The Bihar Rules’ requirement of a -minimum 50 Mbps internet speed, HD camera and noise-cancelling microphones might be aspirational, but it is a far cry from what most courts will be able to meet today. Until this is bridge, the VC framework will largely be only a tool of convenience for u rban litigants.

The rules are thus vague as to the admissibility of a technical failure. If the user experiences a decline in audio-video quality during the examination of a witness in the Bihar and Sikkim Rules the remote user is required to “shout”, alert the coordinator, who in turn alerts the court. The court may then consider the hearing as incomplete. However, the procedure for the custodian to be denied access to the testimony conducted before the spotlight was blown is not provided for. Whether the hearing is completely, partially or not retained is left indefinitely ambiguous, which may have procedural implications in situations such as when the remote user is “shouted” off in the middle of cross-examination.

As for other consent issues, there is no clear allocation for the accused ‘s consent to his appearance via VC in the relevant rules (other than for first remand). Unlike the position in the American Constitution where Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 require written consent from the defendant for VC hearings in non-emergency situations, in the UK framework there is an interests-of-justice test applied by the courts, the BNSS and also the VC Rules remain largely silent as to the accused‘s ability to insist on presence in person. On the one hand, the court has the power to require an appearance by VC, but on the other hand there could be a violation of the right to fair trial in Article 21 [17]of the Constitution by not validating the accused ‘s choice where it should be safeguarded, particularly in grave criminal trials.

The certificate requirement in s. 63 of the BSA still remains an operational difficulty. Although we now even explicitly outline the certificate requirement the hash value of the electronic record and the algorithm used verification remains difficult. Members of the police force, prosecution offices or even forensic laboratories are not equally able to produce an electronically and technically correct certificate. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) held that” (a) certificate is essential to justify the secondary evidence[18] (and the Court) would summon the person who files an incomplete or defective certificate”. Bench-bar training on BSA certification requirements appears to be an operational requirement not a luxury.

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND REFORM SUGGESTIONS

Lessons from comparator jurisdictions are particularly instructive. The CJ (Amendment) Act 2003 introduced the use of live links to the United Kingdom, binding courts by reference to scant judicial guidance on the reasonableness of remote participation in accordance with the interests of justice or structured discretion. Singapore courts (post-pandemic) regularised Zoom usage through comprehensive public guides and control of VC endpoints, thus facilitating speedy disposal.

Reforms proposed for India based on the uploaded documents and through the comparison of other countries are:

Firstly, a National VC Certification System should be implemented, with BNSS sections linked to standard checklists, meta data requirements and audit trails. This would supersede the High Court-by-High Court service notification method with a fundamental standard all courts must satisfy.

Secondly, the Accredited VC Endpoint Registry should be notified by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court, which will specify the police stations, jails, legal aid centres and court kiosks that will qualify as accredited endpoints according to technical criteria. Examination of a witness should Normally be conducted only from an accredited end point and not from an unsanctioned personal device.

Third, mandatory periodic Bench-Bar Training Modules must include topic on the integrity of digital evidence, certified declaration under Section 63 BSA and VC courtroom management. The current polity assumes technical competence that is yet to be achieved.

Fourth, in terms of balancing the efficiency with the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Article 21, a statutory right of election for an accused faced with a trial for heinous offences, to elect for physical presence should be examined for law.

CONCLUSION

The BNSS and BSA, as an integrated whole, is the greatest leap forward in Indian law to incorporate technology into the criminal justice process. Under the BNSS, Section 530 along with more than two dozen other provisions encapsulates virtual proceedings in statutory law, rather than as a judicial largesse. The BSA anchors electronically recorded statements as oral evidence, eliminating all remaining evidentiary hurdles to an open virtual trial.

To date, High Courts have been quick to chart a course of action: the Bihar Rules of November 2025 and the Sikkim Rules of July 2025-28 delineate processes to handle identification, coordination, examination, transmission of documents, and security. These rules are more than administrative instructions they function as rules of law under Article 227 of the Constitution and establish legal rights and obligations.

This is the path of judicial precedents from Praful Desai (2003) toward V. Sasikumar (2026) and XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT (2026). In each case, the judiciary has extended the reach of presence, recognized the sacred nature of cross examination over VC, and held that safeguards to the process of justice must be preserved in each medium. Ultimately, these decisions say, virtual justice, in the right hands, is real justice.

However, the new system can only begin to live up to the hopes placed upon it if the shortcomings of the proposed approach are even more so. The digital divide, lack of a national SOP, unclear consent and the variation in compliance with the BSA ‘s certificate requirements are not superficial concerns they are central to establishing whether virtual trials can truly render just verdicts.

India had, with the BNSS and BSA, passed a piece of legislation that isBuilt to last digital. The task before us is to create the courts, infrastructure and culture to make the law ‘s potential the reality for each and every litigant, witness, accused and victim that passes though the criminal justice system in person and on screen.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Statutes

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Enforced from 1 July 2024.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000), Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) [repealed and replaced by BNSS, 2023].
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872) [repealed and replaced by BSA, 2023].
Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), 225, 227 (Superintendence of High Courts).

Judicial Precedents

State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053 / (2003) 4 SCC 601. Supreme Court of India.
Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/1450/2015. Supreme Court of India.
Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0869/2023. Supreme Court of India.
Sasikumar v. K. Sathyendran and Ors., MANU/KE/0352/2026. Kerala High Court.
XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT, MANU/DE/1282/2026. Delhi High Court.
Bharatlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0880/2025. Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. Supreme Court of India.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, AIR 2015 SC 180. Supreme Court of India.
Shafhi Mohammad v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 801. Supreme Court of India.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600. Supreme Court of India.
Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P., 2015 CRI. L. J. 1690. Supreme Court of India.

Rules and Notifications

The Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means for the District Courts of Bihar Rules, 2025. Patna High Court Notification No. (X-06-2025) A.D. (Rules) 2806 (R), dated 18 November 2025, published in Bihar Gazette (Extra-Ordinary), No. Patna 1718.
Sikkim High Court and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025. High Court of Sikkim Notification No. 18/HCS, dated 02/07/2025, published in Sikkim Government Gazette (Extra-Ordinary), Gangtok, No. 263.
Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 (Delhi). Referenced in XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT, MANU/DE/1282/2026.
Model Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020. e-Committee, Supreme Court of India.
Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020. Repealed by Bihar VC Rules, 2025 and Sikkim VC Rules, 2025.

[1] Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, especially Section 530.

[2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), Section 273.

[3] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act No. 47 of 2023), especially Sections 2(e) and 63.

[4] Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 65-B.

[5] Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227.

[6] Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 (repealed by Bihar VC Rules, 2025 and Sikkim VC Rules, 2025).

[7] State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 2053 / (2003) 4 SCC 601 (Supreme Court of India).

[8] Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/1450/2015 (Supreme Court of India).

[9] Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/SC/0869/2023 (Supreme Court of India).

[10] V. Sasikumar v. K. Sathyendran and Ors., MANU/KE/0352/2026 (Kerala High Court).

[11] Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 (Delhi), referenced in XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT, MANU/DE/1282/2026.

[12] XXXX v. State of Delhi NCT, MANU/DE/1282/2026 (Delhi High Court).

[13] Bharatlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/MP/0880/2025 (Madhya Pradesh High Court).

[14] The Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means for the District Courts of Bihar Rules, 2025, Patna High Court Notification No. (X-06-2025) A.D. (Rules) 2806 (R), dated 18 November 2025.

[15] Sikkim High Court and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025, High Court of Sikkim Notification No. 18/HCS, dated 02/07/2025.

[16] Model Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, e-Committee, Supreme Court of India.

[17] Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21.

[18] Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India).