Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Soundproof VC Facilities In All Prisons To Protect Lawyer-Client Confidentiality
Observing that "every prison must have soundproof facilities where convicts are able to interact with their counsel via video conference and have in-person meetings with their counsel," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the right of an accused/convict to communicate with their counsel in full confidentiality is a fundamental component of a fair trial, and this protection...
Observing that "every prison must have soundproof facilities where convicts are able to interact with their counsel via video conference and have in-person meetings with their counsel," the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the right of an accused/convict to communicate with their counsel in full confidentiality is a fundamental component of a fair trial, and this protection extends equally to digital interactions through video conferencing.
Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said,
Every prison must have soundproof facilities where convicts are able to interact with their counsel via video conference and have in-person meetings with their counsel. Thus, the video conferencing rooms in jail should be remodelled in such a manner that the attorney- client privilege is protected. At all these places/jails where such infrastructure needs to be raised, the requisite steps should be taken by the jail department."
Speaking for the bench Justice Chitkara said in the soundproof cabins, the necessary steps required to maintain the privacy of the discussion ought to be taken. In Courts, it should be ensured that headphones are made available to defence lawyers so that the public prosecutor or witnesses cannot overhear the conversation.
The Court clarified that the order and the observations contained herein shall operate "only for the limited and exclusive purpose of interaction of the undertrial prisoners and the convict inmates with their legal counsel/advocate/lawyer and shall not be construed to include interaction with any relative(s) or friend(s) etc."
It directed that in all prisons where there are no soundproof facilities, the concerned Governments of the States of Punjab and Haryana, and the UT of Chandigarh, to ensure the creation of soundproof rooms/facilities at the earliest, not later than 30.06.2026.
On the previous date of hearing (April 1, 2026), counsel for the appellant submitted that he was unable to effectively communicate with his client due to lack of uninterrupted and secure videoconferencing facilities in prison.
On April 17, 2026, the State placed affidavits denying the allegations. However, counsel reiterated that meaningful interaction had not been possible and sought appropriate arrangements.
Taking note of the issue, the Court expanded the scope of the matter to examine the broader question of availability of soundproof and secure videoconferencing facilities in prisons across Punjab, Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The Court emphasized that attorney-client privilege is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, and includes both physical and digital communications.
Referring to Section 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court reiterated that confidential communications between a client and legal adviser cannot be compelled to be disclosed.
The Court relied on international instruments including, ICCPR (Article 14, General Comment 32), UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Rome Statute of the ICC and Nelson Mandela Rules.
Soundproof Rooms Become Important To Be Set Up
The Court said that every accused has a fundamental right to access legal aid/counselling/advice through a legal professional, and such a conversation acquires the status of a “privileged communication” which upholds the accused's right against self-incrimination.
Though an accused inmate is not a “free” person, they retain a reasonable right to life, which extends to a fair trial, and it is important to protect the accused against any potential breach of their right to have a fair and impartial trial. It is in pursuance of this attorney-client privilege that soundproof rooms become important to be set up, it added.
Digital Divide & Fair Trial Concerns
The Court highlighted the growing reliance on video conferencing in criminal trials and the resulting disadvantages faced by undertrial prisoners.
"We, the humans, are witnessing unparalleled and unprecedented revolutions of Information Technology and its subsets, which have globally transformed every aspect of our lives; however, when the tech grows, not everyone benefits. Those facing trials and other proceedings while languishing in jails have become the first victims of this digital divide. There are two types of undertrial inmate accused: one who participate in their court proceedings, while on bail, and the others who face trials, appeals, and other criminal proceedings from within the four walls of the jail. Both categories, in all situations, must be represented by a defence lawyer," the bench said.
It added that those on bail have the privilege of meeting, interacting with, and giving instructions to their respective lawyers, and even during court proceedings, they can remain present in court in person and can assist their counsel at all stages, including putting relevant questions to the witnesses. Earlier, undertrial inmates would be taken before the courts in person, where they not only had the opportunity to speak to their counsel but could also freely breathe for a brief time outside the four walls of the jails.
The bench further observed that now, with the advent of technology, where the presence of these accused is secured through video conferencing, they are not physically brought to the court, which makes it extremely difficult for such individuals to interact with their defence counsel and pass on necessary instructions without fear or duress.
"Whenever any prosecution witness is examined, and the accused is appearing through videoconference, then the defence lawyer is the only one present, and Counsel has no option but to cross-examine the witness just by going through the Police Report without any assistance from the accused languishing in custody. In the absence of soundproof rooms, these prisoners become real losers," it added.
State's Responsibility
The Court said for for every criminal trial to be fair, every defence counsel representing the accused must have the opportunity to interact with them. As the onus of facilitating a fair trial rest heavily upon the State's shoulders, it becomes the duty of the State to provide adequate infrastructure and facilities so that an undertrial inmate can also interact with their defence lawyer
The Court asked to supply a copy of the order to the Home Secretaries of the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, and the UT of Chandigarh, for implementation.
It was further clarified that such videoconferencing shall be only between the accused/convict and their Counsel and interpreters, if required.
"The family members of the accused should not be permitted to participate in such an interaction. Further, such interaction, whether in person or through video conferencing, shall be conducted in a soundproof room so that no one else can hear the conversation between the Counsel and the accused/convict, not only to maintain privacy but also to ensure that the attorney-client privilege is not breached, directly or indirectly," it added.
Needless to say, the conversations, whether in person or through video conferencing, shall not be recorded by anyone, and, if recorded, any such recording would undoubtedly violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, the bench said.
In the present case the Court directed the Superintendent of the concerned prison to arrange a videoconference between the convict Sunil Kumar and his Advocate.
Mr. Komal Preet Singh, Advocate for the appellant
in CRA-D-75-2026. Ms. Vidyotma Malik, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-D-109-2026. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Ameesha Goel, Advocate, for the complainant
Title: POONAM AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF H