Recognising the transformative change and necessity of technology for ensuring affordable and easy access to justice, the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) held that the confluence of Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik a Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, with the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, and the Electronic Filing Rules for Court (Kerala), 2021, embodies the progressive legislative and judicial policy to integrate technology to enhance access to justice.

The Court added that an accused who is unable to personally appear before the trial court due to genuine constraints may answer questions under Section 351 of the BNSS, either through video conferencing or by submitting a written statement.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias, therefore, set aside the trial court’s order rejecting the petitioner’s plea for exemption from personal appearance, noting that denying such permission in the era of digital justice would contradict both the spirit of the BNSS and the technological framework established by the Electronic Video Linkage Rules, 2021.

The Single Judge examined Section 351 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 313 CrPC, and observed that the newly codified provision explicitly authorizes alternative compliance. As per the said provision, the Court may take the help of the prosecutor and defence counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused, and the Court may permit the filing of a written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance with this section.

This statutory change reflects the legislative acknowledgment that modern judicial processes must accommodate remote participation and written responses, ensuring substantive rather than rigid compliance with procedural formalities, added the Bench.

The Bench also noted that the BNSS itself introduces digital flexibility across multiple provisions, for instance, Section 251(2) permits charges to be read and explained to the accused either physically or through “audio/video electronic means,” indicating that technology is now an accepted mode of judicial engagement.

The Bench clarified that technological adaptation is not a deviation from law but an affirmation of the evolving constitutional right to access justice. A personal examination is intended to safeguard the accused’s right to explain incriminating evidence, a purpose that can be equally served through authenticated written or video responses. Thus, digital compliance is substantial compliance, provided the authenticity of the accused’s answers is ensured through affidavit, signature, or digitally verified video recording.

Appearances:

Advocates K.V. Anil Kumar, Radhika S. Anil, and Nijaz Jaleel, for the Petitioner

Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent