CHENNAI: Why should people accused in criminal cases not be allowed to sit in court halls during trial, the Madras high court has asked.
"We see no reason why, if there are benches vacant, even the accused who come to the court cannot be seated there," said the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam, in an apparent bid to make the court experience easier for not only witnesses, but also the accused.
The judges then directed the court's registrar-general to look into the issue and make available seating facilities for accused in the criminal and trial courts.
"We find it difficult to accept that any court would deliberately make a woman or an expectant mother to stand in the court," they observed, adding that if a person is of advanced age or if any expectant mother even in the witness box that person can be seated, if required. "The purpose is to record the testimony and not to cause pain or physical inconvenience," they said.
In this regard, the judges cited the 33-year old judgment of the Supreme Court in the Avatar Singh and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1982) case which said: "We are unable to understand how any court in our country can at all insist that the accused shall keep on standing during the trial, particularly when the trial is long and arduous. We hope that all the high courts in India take appropriate steps, if they have not already done so, to provide in their respective criminal manuals required under Section 477(1) of the CrPC, that the accused shall be permitted to sit down during the trial unless it becomes necessary for the accused to stand up for any specific purpose as for example for the purpose of identification."
Reiterating the need to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, the first bench said the high court's registrar-general should issue necessary direction/office order in the matter.
The judgment has come at a time when trial courts are making witnesses and suspects go through highly forgettable court experiences, said former special public prosecutor for human rights court V Kannadasan. "In most trial courts, accused and those who come to courts for surrender or recall of warrants are made to squat on the floor, and no one is allowed to enter with chappals on. Accused are herded into the box with folded hands and bowed heads," he said.
The issue of providing seats to witnesses and accused came up for court's consideration when a PIL filed by A Jaiganesh of Satta Panchayat Iyakkam came up for hearing. Seeking a direction to all judicial and quasi-iudicial forums in Tamil Nadu to re-arrange their paraphernalia in such a way as to treat victims, witnesses and suspects with dignity by offering them a seat, the PIL submitted that citizens arraigned as accused and summoned by criminal courts are denied a seat and forced to stand for hours.
It also cited the case of the arrest of RTI activist Siva Elango, who was detained for taking a seat during a hearing at Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. Assailing the "mindset" of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and the treatment meted out to Siva Elango, the PIL claimed that the then chief information commissioner had told protesting RTI activists that he was a retired chief secretary of a state and hence others should remain standing during hearings.
Relegating victims, witnesses and suspects in criminal and civil trials to the far-end of court halls and herding them like cattle is unfair, the PIL said.
"We see no reason why, if there are benches vacant, even the accused who come to the court cannot be seated there," said the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam, in an apparent bid to make the court experience easier for not only witnesses, but also the accused.
The judges then directed the court's registrar-general to look into the issue and make available seating facilities for accused in the criminal and trial courts.
"We find it difficult to accept that any court would deliberately make a woman or an expectant mother to stand in the court," they observed, adding that if a person is of advanced age or if any expectant mother even in the witness box that person can be seated, if required. "The purpose is to record the testimony and not to cause pain or physical inconvenience," they said.
In this regard, the judges cited the 33-year old judgment of the Supreme Court in the Avatar Singh and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1982) case which said: "We are unable to understand how any court in our country can at all insist that the accused shall keep on standing during the trial, particularly when the trial is long and arduous. We hope that all the high courts in India take appropriate steps, if they have not already done so, to provide in their respective criminal manuals required under Section 477(1) of the CrPC, that the accused shall be permitted to sit down during the trial unless it becomes necessary for the accused to stand up for any specific purpose as for example for the purpose of identification."
Reiterating the need to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, the first bench said the high court's registrar-general should issue necessary direction/office order in the matter.
The judgment has come at a time when trial courts are making witnesses and suspects go through highly forgettable court experiences, said former special public prosecutor for human rights court V Kannadasan. "In most trial courts, accused and those who come to courts for surrender or recall of warrants are made to squat on the floor, and no one is allowed to enter with chappals on. Accused are herded into the box with folded hands and bowed heads," he said.
The issue of providing seats to witnesses and accused came up for court's consideration when a PIL filed by A Jaiganesh of Satta Panchayat Iyakkam came up for hearing. Seeking a direction to all judicial and quasi-iudicial forums in Tamil Nadu to re-arrange their paraphernalia in such a way as to treat victims, witnesses and suspects with dignity by offering them a seat, the PIL submitted that citizens arraigned as accused and summoned by criminal courts are denied a seat and forced to stand for hours.
It also cited the case of the arrest of RTI activist Siva Elango, who was detained for taking a seat during a hearing at Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. Assailing the "mindset" of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities and the treatment meted out to Siva Elango, the PIL claimed that the then chief information commissioner had told protesting RTI activists that he was a retired chief secretary of a state and hence others should remain standing during hearings.
Relegating victims, witnesses and suspects in criminal and civil trials to the far-end of court halls and herding them like cattle is unfair, the PIL said.
No comments:
Post a Comment