DIRECTIONS FOR FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIARY DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC :-

➤ The recent outbreak of Coronavirus in several countries, including India, has necessitated the immediate adoption of measures to ensure social distancing in order to prevent the transmission of the virus. The Supreme Court of India and High Courts have adopted measures to reduce the physical presence of lawyers, litigants, court staff, paralegal personnel and representatives of the electronic and print media in courts across the country and to ensure the continued dispensation of justice.

➤ The use of technology found judicial recognition in precedent of this court in the State of Maharashtra V/s Praful Desai (2003 4 SCC 601)  Supreme Court of India held in the following case that  the recording of evidence by way of video conferencing might be done in cases where the attendance of the witness cannot be ensured without delay, expense and inconvenience. 

Furthermore it observed that developments in technology have opened up the possibility of virtual courts which are similar to physical courts.

➤ Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred on the supreme court of India by Article 142 of the Constitution of India to make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice, Supreme court directs that :

➯ All measures that have been and shall be taken by this court nd by the High Courts, to reduce the need for the physical presence of all stakeholders within court premises and to secure the functioning of courts in consonance with social distancing guidelines and best public health practices shall be deemed to be lawful.

➯ The Supreme Court of India and all High Courts are authorized to adopt measures required to ensure the robust functioning of the judicial system through the use of video conferencing technologies.

➯ Consistent with the peculiarities of the judicial system in every state and the dynamically developing public health situation, every High Court is authorized to determine the modalities which are suitable to the temporary transition to the use of video conferencing technologies.

➯ The concerned Court shall maintain a helpline to ensure that any complaint in regard to the quality or audibility of feed shall be communicated during the proceeding or immediately after its conclusion falling which no grievances in regard to it shall be entertained thereafter.

➯ The District Courts in each state shall adopt the mode of video conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court.

➯ The Court shall duly notify and make available the facilities for video conferencing for such litigants who do not have the means or access to video conferencing facilities. If necessary, in appropriate cases Courts may appoint an amicus-curiae and make video conferencing facilities available to such an advocate.

➯ Until appropriate rules are framed by the High Courts, video conferencing shall be mainly employed for hearing arguments whether at the trial stage or at the appellate stage. In no case shall evidence be recorded without the mutual consent of both the parties by video conferencing. If it is necessary to record the evidence in court room the presiding officer shall ensure that appropriate distance is maintained between any two individuals in the court.

➯ The presiding officer shall have the power to restrict entry of persons into the court room or the points from which the arguments are addressed by the advocates. No presiding Officer shall prevent the entry of a party to the case unless such party is suffering from any infectious illness. However, where the number of litigants are many the presiding officer shall have the power to restrict the numbers. The presiding officer shall in his discretion adjourn the proceedings where it is not possible to restrict the number.