Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

"High Court Advocates for Fair Trial Scheduling: 'Lawyer's Convenience Must Be Considered'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of considering the convenience of lawyers while scheduling trials, the High Court of Kerala, led by the Honorable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, has set a precedent for a more balanced approach in the judicial process.

The judgment, delivered on November 3, 2023, in the case of CRL.MC NO. 9209 of 2023, involved the rescheduling of a murder trial initially dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad. The High Court's intervention was sought after the lower court's decision, which was influenced by a High Court directive for the swift disposal of murder cases.

Justice Kunhikrishnan, in his ruling, emphasized, "These are fundamental things to be considered by the trial court at the time when the case is posted for trial." He highlighted that while the expeditious disposal of cases is essential, it should not overshadow the fundamental rights of the accused, including the right to choose their legal representation.

The judgment further noted that "Accused has got a right to choose his lawyer for conducting the trial and hence the convenience of the lawyer also should be taken care of by the Court." This observation is pivotal in ensuring that the scheduling of trials is not just a unilateral decision but a process that respects the needs of all parties involved, including the legal representatives.

Advocate V.A. Johnson, representing the petitioners, welcomed the judgment, stating that it reinforces the principle of fairness in the legal process. The Public Prosecutor, Smt Sreeja V, also acknowledged the judgment's significance in balancing the need for timely justice with the practicalities of legal representation.

The High Court's directive to the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, to reconsider the application for rescheduling the trial in light of this judgment, marks a crucial step in ensuring a judicious balance between the expeditious disposal of cases and the rights of the accused to fair representation.

This landmark decision is expected to influence future cases where trial scheduling conflicts with the availability of legal counsel, ensuring a fairer and more equitable justice system.

 Date of Decision- 3rd November 2023

VISHNU VS STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Kerl-03-Nov-23-Vishnu-Vs-State1.pdf"]

Similar News