Video Conferencing in Court Proceedings: SC/HC Guidelines
Law and technology:
The Indian Courts have embraced the growth in technology. A critical example of this is the usage of video conferencing in court proceedings while recording evidence. There have been many reasons why it was imperative why the Indian Courts needed to walk hand in hand with the ever-growing technology and take advantage of it. The special provisions, i.e., Section 65A and 65B, have been inserted into the Evidence Act relating to the electronic record and its admissibility. Courts have now interpreted this vital provision to include Video conferencing.
Landmark Precedents:
The Indian judicial system has put forward specific parameters through various landmark precedents on how video conferencing in court proceedings can be used in regard to record evidence — keeping different circumstances in mind, for instance, if a person has to appear physically during court proceedings due to personal or other reasons could not appear on a particular date assigned by the court. The inability of the concerned person to be present physically has caused a significant delay of justice and has wasted a lot of courts precious time. However, now through various landmark judgements, Indian courts have held that the physical presence of a person can be substituted. In one of the cases, such as Amitabh Bagchi v Ena Bagchi, 2005, it was held that ‘presence’ does not necessarily mean actual physical presence in the court.
In the landmark judgment of State of Maharashtra v Dr Praful B Desai, this position had been synthesised in 2003 when the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed Video conferencing as a vital instrument for collecting the evidence during court proceedings in different cases where the witness may not be able to appear or necessarily be examined by the court conveniently. Since the case of Praful B Desai, there has been an enormous increase in the tendency of resorting to Video conferencing during civil court proceedings, especially as an instrument for collecting evidence from a witness who resides abroad. Hence, this trend favoured many Non- Resident Indians and foreign citizens who could not travel back to India to appear in their matters. They could now, through Video conferencing, assist the court in recording evidence without having to travel back and forth.
Video conferencing in court proceedings has proved to be highly advantageous and since then been used in several cases where the witness was not able to attend the court proceedings physically, for instance in Alcatel India Ltd v Koshika Telecom Ltd & Ors, 2004 due to the witness not being in the best of health, the court allowed the witness to give evidence through Video conferencing. Similarly, in the Amitabh Bagchi case, the High Court of Calcutta clearly believed that a realistic look should be taken by a court while allowing electronic video conferencing as it definitely avoids the delay of justice well as is cost-friendly.
During court proceedings, the courts have also resorted to using this technology, based on essential facts and state of affairs. For example, a sexually exploited victim with post-traumatic stress disorder was allowed to be examined via Video conferencing.
The facility has been used by higher courts and used by the subordinate courts; another example is where the presiding judicial officer had to record the evidence of prisoners who are under trial for security reasons.
In the matter of Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd v MV ‘Sea Success I’ & another, 2005, the Bombay High Court held the Plaintiff’s deposition via Video conferencing is allowed. As the witness resided in the UK with her two minor children and could not come to India for the court proceedings, this provision was permitted. In Bodala Murali Krishna v Smt Badola Prathima 2007 case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court similarly allowed a USA resident witness to depose via video conferencing. The court expressed its view that there should not be any objection to utilising the facility of Video conferencing in civil cases so long as the essential facilities and assured result are obtained.
COVID and Video conferencing in court proceedings:
In Suo Motu Writ [Civil] №5/2020, the honourable Supreme Court of India has again put forward specific guidelines for a Court proceeding to occur through Video conferencing during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Given the current outbreak of COVID- 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, through its Order dated 06.04.2020, has again appreciated the facility of video conferencing and acknowledged taking evidence by video conferencing.
The guidelines are focused on decreasing the physical presence of the court staff, lawyers, judges, representatives from the electronic and print media and paralegal in courts throughout the country whilst ensuring that the justice is not delayed has emphasised for recording evidence through video conferencing in court proceedings. However, with the condition that the court shall only record the court evidence if both the parties provide consent for the same. Furthermore, only if it is seen as essential to record the evidence in a courtroom, the judicial officer would take precautions and measures to enable the same.
