#Right to cross-examine

The Bombay High Court has ruled that defendants' inability to appear for cross-examination due to pandemic constraints cannot be grounds for shutting down their defence entirely. This reaffirms that natural justice under Article 14 and the principle of audi alteram partem require courts to accommodate legitimate disruptions, not penalize litigants for circumstances beyond their control.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a divorce decree must be set aside when a spouse is medically incapacitated - such as by a paralytic stroke - and denied the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner. This violates Article 21 and the foundational principle of natural justice, requiring remand to ensure a meaningful hearing. The ruling binds Family Courts to prioritize procedural fairness over procedural expediency in matrimonial disputes.

The Madras High Court has ruled that the POCSO Act’s procedural safeguards for child victims do not extend to blocking cross-examination of adult prosecution witnesses under BNSS Section 348. This affirms the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial and prevents misuse of POCSO’s protective provisions to suppress legitimate defense rights in mixed-witness cases.

Tripura High Court rules that denying an accused the right to cross-examine witnesses under Section 311 CrPC, especially in POCSO cases, amounts to a violation of Article 21 and natural justice. The court remanded the case for a fair trial, emphasizing that contradictions between oral testimony and Section 164 statements necessitate cross-examination to prevent prejudice.

Rajasthan High Court holds that denial of cross-examination violates natural justice; mandates one final opportunity under Section 311 CrPC with cost condition.