The Rajasthan High Court has corrected an earlier order in which it had directed the State Government to consider amending Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to permit the appearance of accused persons through video conferencing during criminal trials. This modification came after the State submitted that such an amendment had already been made and duly notified.
On March 7, the court had allowed six individuals—accused in several FIRs related to financial offences—to appear in their ongoing criminal trials via video conferencing. The court had noted that physically attending multiple court locations at the same time may not be feasible for the accused. It had also observed that under Section 273 CrPC, there was no legal restriction if the accused was represented by legal counsel.
At that time, the court referred to amendments made by the states of Gujarat and Jharkhand, which allowed for the accused to appear via electronic video linkage in certain cases. The bench had expressed hope that the Rajasthan Government would also consider making similar amendments to CrPC. Specifically, it had stated:
“In cases where the accused is in judicial custody and their personal appearance is not strictly necessary, proceedings may continue in the presence of their counsel. Where their presence is required, jail authorities should ensure their availability through video conferencing.”
However, following this order, the State Government filed an application before the court, presided by Justice Farjand Ali. The application pointed out that Rajasthan had already amended Section 273 CrPC and that the amendment had received the President’s assent and was officially notified in the Gazette.
The State requested the court to make "necessary corrections" to its March 7 order in light of this amendment.
Upon reviewing the documents attached with the application, the High Court recognized the validity of the State's submission. The bench clarified:
“It is evident that the amendment to Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. has been duly notified. While passing the earlier order, this Court had referred to the latest bare act of 2024 available in this High Court library, which only mentioned amendments from Gujarat and Jharkhand.”
“Additionally, this Court conducted research on the official website of the Government of Rajasthan, Law and Legal Affairs Department, but the amendment was not found at that time. This led to the issuance of directions in the March 7 order.”
However, the State later showed that the amendment had been published on the website of the Law (Legislative Drafting) Department and was verifiable.
As a result, the High Court modified its earlier order by omitting Paragraph No. 6, which had directed the State to consider making a suitable amendment to the CrPC.
“The amendment had already been made through a notification dated January 15, 2019. Therefore, this Court allows the State’s application and corrects its earlier direction.”
This clarification not only confirms the amendment’s legal standing but also rectifies the earlier oversight by the Court, which was based on the information available at the time.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan v Vikram Singh Indroi
S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 195/2025
