The Kerala High Court declined a request to temporarily relocate a first-floor courtroom to the ground floor to accommodate an advocate suffering from diabetic neuropathy, but permitted the advocate to cross-examine witnesses through video conferencing. In the matter before the Court, the petitioners were accused in a criminal trial involving charges under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. Their counsel, a senior bar member, submitted that his diabetic condition prevented him from climbing stairs to reach the trial courtroom located on the first floor, and requested either an adjournment of the trial or relocation of the courtroom to a more accessible floor.
The trial court had initially allowed a two-month postponement, but on that date the counsel was unable to reach the courtroom due to his inability to climb stairs. Subsequent applications for further adjournment were rejected by the trial court. A bail order of the High Court had earlier directed the trial court to conclude the trial by a fixed date, as some of the accused were under-trial prisoners. The petitioners therefore appealed to the High Court, citing prior authority in which a courtroom had been shifted for one day to allow a specially-abled counsel to operate.
While the High Court acknowledged the genuine physical difficulties faced by the advocate and emphasised that courts must remain sensitive to such hardships, it held that the administration of justice could not be paralysed by this difficulty. The Court observed that the ground-floor courtrooms were already heavily utilised with regular functioning and high pendency, making relocation impractical. Moreover, the Court stressed that the trial could not be concluded in one day and that the rights of under-trial accused to a prompt trial were fundamental.
As a solution, the Court offered a pragmatic alternative: it invited the petitioners’ counsel to apply for cross-examination of witnesses using the facility of electronic video linkage under the applicable rules for administrative hearings in Kerala. This option was accepted as a reasonable accommodation enabling the advocate to participate without physically accessing the first-floor courtroom. The High Court thereby partially allowed the plea—by setting aside the order rejecting the adjournment application—but dismissed the request to shift the courtroom. The Court reaffirmed the trial’s conclusion deadline and directed the trial court to consider any application for video-linked cross-examination in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.