Kerala High Court Rejects Plea To Temporarily Shift Courtroom To Ground Floor For Diabetic Advocate, Permits Cross-Examination Via VC

Justice C.S. Dias opined that courts must be sympathetic to the difficulties faced by advocates and practical alternatives can be devised so as not to disrupt the administration of justice.

The petitioners before the Court are accused Nos. 1 and 8 in a case pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad alleging commission of offences under Sections 120B, 109, 118, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) r/w Section 7(a) of the Arms Act.

Their counsel before the trial court is a senior member of the bar, who has various ailments including diabetic neuropathy. The counsel had filed an application to postpone trial for two months and the same was allowed, rescheduling the trial.

However, when the counsel came on the rescheduled date, he could not climb the stairs to reach the trial court located on the 1^st floor. The trial court then issued a stop memo to the remaining witnesses.

An application was filed to adjourn the trial by 3 more months but it was rejected. In the bail application of one of the accused, the High Court had given a direction to the trial court to conclude trial by 25.03.2026 since some of the accused in the case are under-trial prisoners. Aggrieved by the order dismissing application to adjourn trial, the petitioners came before the High Court.

The petitioners' counsel relied on Mani C. Kappan v. State of Kerala, wherein the High Court had ordered that the trial involving MLA Mani C. Kappan be moved to a different courtroom, for one day, to accommodate his counsel, Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai.

However, the public prosecutor opposed the plea and told the Court that out of the 167 cited by the prosecution, only 94 have been examined. If the case is adjourned as prayed for, it would not be possible to conclude the trial within the time limit fixed.

The Court noted that in the present case, trial cannot be concluded in one day. Moreover, since the courts on the ground floor of the court complex are functioning regularly, with heavy pendency, it would not be practical to shift the courtrooms to conduct the trial of the petitioners.

It further remarked that since some of the accused are under-trial prisoners, it is their fundamental right that the trial be conducted in an expeditious manner.

“The Bar and the Bench are the two wheels of the chariot of justice. The courts must remain sensitive to the genuine hardship and difficulties faced by an officer of the court. Nevertheless, the administration of justice cannot be permitted to be paralysed or clogged on account of such difficulty. Instead, where circumstances demand, a pragmatic alternative must be devised, including availing of the facility of electronic video linkage under the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, in this era of hybrid hearing, or engaging another counsel,” the Court observed.

The Court, being sensitive to the genuine hardships faced, was inclined to defer the trial so as to enable the petitioners' counsel to recover or for them to come up with alternative arrangements. However, it made it clear that the trial has to be concluded by 25.03.2025, the date fixed.

It thus allowed the plea in part and set aside the trial court's order dismissing the application to defer trial. However, it dismissed the prayer to shift the courtroom to the ground floor.

The Court also held that if an application to cross-examine the witnesses through electronic video linkage be filed, the same has to be considered in accordance with law.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 10110 of 2025

Case Title: Ramesh K. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 744

Counsel for the petitioner: Rajit, Sruthi Rajit

Counsel for the respondents: C.S. Hrithwik – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment