Holding that denial of confidential access to defence counsel strikes at the very root of a fair trial, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the creation of soundproof rooms in all prisons across Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh by June 30 for secure in-person and video conference interaction between inmates and their lawyers.Expanding the scope of proceedings after being informed that jail authorities had not permitted a convict to interact with his counsel through videoconferencing, the bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur ruled: “For every criminal trial to be fair, every defence counsel representing the accused must have the opportunity to interact with them.”The assertion came as the bench placed the onus squarely on the State to ensure adequate infrastructure.The court made it clear that “as the onus of facilitating a fair trial rests heavily upon the State’s shoulders, it becomes the duty of the State to provide adequate infrastructure and facilities so that an under-trial inmate can also interact with their defence lawyer.”Soundproof rooms, strict confidentiality mandatedIssuing a series of mandatory directions, the court ordered: “Every prison must have soundproof facilities where convicts are able to interact with their counsel via videoconference and have in-person meetings with their counsel.” It added that “the videoconferencing rooms in jail should be remodeled in such a manner that the attorney-client privilege is protected.”The bench further directed that “in the soundproof cabins, the necessary steps required to maintain the privacy of the discussion ought to be taken,” while 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.”Clarifying the scope, the court said the directions were for the limited and exclusive purpose of interaction of the under-trial prisoners and the convict inmates with their legal counsel and would not extend to relatives or friends.It added that even during videoconferencing, such interaction would be conducted in a soundproof room so that no one else can hear the conversation to ensure that the attorney-client privilege was not breached.The bench also issued a categorical prohibition: “The conversations, whether in person or through videoconferencing, 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.”Deadline and compliance mechanismDirecting time-bound compliance, the court ordered that in prisons lacking such infrastructure, the governments of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh “are directed to ensure the creation of soundproof rooms/facilities at the earliest, not later than 30.06.2026.”Copies of the order were directed to be supplied to Home Secretaries for implementation, while compliance reports were ordered to be submitted before the Principal District and Sessions Judges concerned.Heightened protection in death penalty casesThe court asserted that the requirement of confidentiality and fairness became even more critical in cases involving irreversible punishment.It observed: “In cases where the punishment is graver, like a death penalty, it becomes all the more incumbent on the State to ensure the highest standards of fairness in the proceedings, including securing to such inmates their fundamental rights to access legal aid with confidentiality.”Attorney-client privilege rooted in fundamental rightsPlacing the issue within a constitutional framework, the Bench held: “Every accused has a fundamental right to access legal aid… and such a conversation acquires the status of a ‘privileged communication’ which upholds the accused’s right against self-incrimination.”It added that although an accused in custody was not a free person, “they retain a reasonable right to life, which extends to a fair trial,” making it imperative to protect against any breach of confidentiality.Global standards citedThe court drew upon international practices, including the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, before observing: “It is not only that the in-person communications between the accused and their attorneys are privileged, but even the digital communications cannot be distinguished in terms of their confidential nature.”Referring to France, it noted that inmates were guaranteed meetings with lawyers “under conditions that guarantee the confidentiality of the interview.”From the United States framework, the court highlighted that attorney-inmate meetings were not subject to auditory supervision and were required to take place in private settings, ensuring confidentiality.Digital divide leaves inmates ‘real losers’The bench flagged how technological advancement, instead of aiding justice, had disadvantaged inmates in custody.“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, the bench asserted.It added that those facing trials and other proceedings while languishing in jails had become the first victims of this digital divide.“There are two types of under-trial inmate accused: one who participates 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.”The bench added both categories in all situations were required to be represented by a defence lawyer.“Now, with the advent of technology, where the presence of these accused is secured through videoconferencing, 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,” the bench asserted.The court added that whenever any prosecution witness was examined and the accused was appearing through videoconference, the defence lawyer was the only one present.He had 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 became real losers.