The Madras High Court has delivered a pivotal ruling, asserting that the physical presence of a witness is not mandatory for cross-examination if video conferencing (VC) can effectively facilitate the process. This ruling emerged from the case Narayanasamy Vs Balasundaram, where Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasized the growing capability and acceptance of conducting legal proceedings through virtual means.
Virtual Cross-Examination in Complex Cases
Justice Venkatesh highlighted that even complex legal proceedings, which involve extensive documentation, should not be excluded from being conducted via video conferencing. He referenced the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2026, which outline the procedures for recording evidence through virtual means.
“A stage has come where any proceedings can be conducted through the VC mode,” stated Justice Venkatesh in his September 9 ruling. He pointed out that numerous arbitration cases with significant turnovers and voluminous documents are already conducted successfully online. Hence, courts should not refuse or dispense with witness examination via VC, even in cases involving intricate issues.
Case Background and Judicial Decision
The ruling was made in the context of a partition suit involving a 72-year-old doctor residing in London. The doctor sought to provide evidence through video conferencing in a case pending before a court in Coimbatore. The defendants, opposing the move, argued that his physical presence was necessary, particularly due to allegations of fraud and the complexity of the case involving division of properties and companies.
Previously, the doctor had been present in India for three hearings, but the defendants did not utilize those opportunities for cross-examination. With the doctor now unable to travel long distances due to a recent bypass surgery, the court allowed his request to appear via video conferencing, despite objections from the defendants who even offered to cover his travel expenses.
High Court’s Rejection of Defendants’ Arguments
The High Court dismissed the defendants’ contentions, noting the safeguards provided by the 2026 Video Conferencing Rules that apply throughout Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Justice Venkatesh found the plaintiff’s age and medical condition as valid reasons for permitting his virtual appearance.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed both revision petitions filed by the defendants. The legal representation included Advocates TM Hariharan and GM Ananthakumar for the petitioners, Advocate Navaneeth Ragavachari instructed by Advocate V Srimathi for the main respondent, and Advocate L Leela Raman for two other respondents.
This ruling underscores the evolving nature of legal proceedings in adapting to technological advancements, ensuring that justice is accessible without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.
