IMAGINE you are watching a court room drama on screen. A crucial witness is being examined. The defence lawyer is trying to elicit the truth from the witness, who is trying to deceive the court. You, as a spectator to the whole drama (and not just the court scenes), know what the lawyer should ask in order to corner the witness, who is deftly trying to avoid stating the whole truth. As an involved viewer you may feel frustrated, unable to aid the cause of truth and justice. But what if the whole drama is about you?
What if your fate - whether you will be thrown into the dungeon for the rest of your life or walk into freedom - were to be decided on the basis of what the lawyer is able to elicit from the witness giving deposition? If trials are going to be held by video conferencing and the accused is forced to remain a mute spectator confined in a prison unable to communicate with his lawyer during the trial, this is going to be an everyday occurrence in our courts.
Keeping up with transitions across institutions globally, courts are increasingly moving to a virtual or hybrid mode.However, these reforms cannot be at the cost of prejudicing the accused, who is entitled to fair trial.
