Overview: COVID 19 and the Indian Court Houses: Challenges to the Indian Judiciary System during Pandemic

On June 8, the Supreme Court finally took cognizance of the plight of migrant labourers who had started marching towards their native villages mired in unemployment, poverty, and lack of facilities. It directed the Centre and the States to withdraw the complaints lodged against them under Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act.[1] Additionally, the Supreme Court also ordered the States to sponsor the return of the migrants and arrange trains for them within next 24 hours. The Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the request of the Kerala Government that it does not have enough funds to meet the necessary travel expenses of migrant workers. [2] Resultingly, thousands of migrant workers are still left stranded. Mithun Jain has written to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta seeking his legal assistance to ferry the workers to their home. [3]

The Supreme Court shuts down on a short summer recess from June 19 to July 6, many crucial problems of the migrant labourers remain to be solved. [4]

Clearly, without the access of courts, the fundamental right of the populace seeking immediate relief through justice stands violated.

Video-Conferencing, a nostalgia of Open Justice

In a slew of directions issued by the Supreme Court, it directed the courts to proceed with the judicial proceedings through video-conferencing. Except for urgent matters, pending judicial and administrative work is suspended. (A criminal appeal will hardly qualify as urgent. What does it mean for a person in jail hoping for a judgment in his favor?)

Previously, India embraced the concept of video conferencing by amending the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,[1] and allowing the judiciary to accept evidence produced through electronic records, thus enhancing the quality of justice. However, it will be the first time when the judiciary will use video conferencing to connect the bench directly to the bar[2]. Essential to note, the step has been taken to avoid the contagion while sacrificing on the quality of justice. The Bar Council of India complained against holding digital proceedings through video conferencing as only privileged lawyers can afford the technological infrastructure, leaving young lawyers with a lack of opportunity.[3]

The brighter side of the story is that it bolsters the use of technology. In Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India[4], the Supreme Court ruled that live streaming of the proceeding subscribes to the principle of open justice. The Court also ruled that “the open court is crucial to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, …which in turn is essential for maintaining the stability of the social fabric.” Reminiscent of the case Scott v Scott[5], where Hewart formulated the rule, “Justice must not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

The guidelines framed by the Supreme Court, though, stand to the spirit of open justice and bolsters the use of technology in the Court system, but how well is the connectivity? Moreover, the video conferencing is limited to “urgent matters,” where no further explanation has been offered to what shall qualify as “urgent.”

As per the report produced by the E-Courts Mission Mode Project, around 80 percent of the court officials do not possess the necessary technical literacy. [6]It will be an overstatement to say that literacy must have witnessed a robust boost in the subsequent four years. Substantial progress must have been made, but the bitter truth is, the Indian Court Houses, with low computer literacy and poor connectivity, is not prepared for the undeclared emergency.

The pandemic comes as a reminder of the unparalleled efficacy of e-court mechanism. It improves access to courts and instills confidence in the public in the judiciary. The lockdown was necessary for the judiciary to dawn upon this fact, as remarked by CJI Sharad Bobde himself while issuing the directives, “This cannot be seen as a temporary issue. Technology is here to stay”. [7]

FAQ:

Q. When was video conferencing first introduced in Indian judiciary?

A. In 2003, in the landmark Judgement of State of Maharashtra vs Dr. Praful B Desai, the Supreme Court upheld video conferencing as a vital tool to collect evidence when witnesses cannot be present in the court.

Profile of the Author:

Sampriti is a 2nd year law student of BALLB course, WBNUJS, Kolkata

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

[1] Indian Evidence Act 1872, § 65A

[2] Harsh Chopra, ‘Supreme Court’s Video Conferencing Guidelines: A Welcome Step’ (The Leaflet, 14 April 2020) <http://theleaflet.in/supreme-courts-video-conferencing-guidelines-a-welcome-step/> accessed 23 June 2020

[3] Sinha, (n 4)

[4] Swapnil Tripathi vs Supreme Court of India [2018] SCALE 475

[5] Scott vs Scott [1913] AC 417

[6] National Council of Applied Economic Research, ‘Evolution Study of e-Courts’ (2015) 46

[7] Chopra (n 6)

[1] Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘Migrant Workers should not be prosecuted’ (The Hindu, 10 June 2020)

<https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-lockdown-migrant-workers-should-not-be-prosecuted-says-supreme-court/article31784841.ece> accessed 23 June 2020

[2] Rajan Sharma, ‘Supreme Court asks Centre, states to send migrant workers home free of charge’ (The Print, 19 June 2020) <https://theprint.in/india/supreme-court-asks-centre-states-to-send-migrant-workers-home-free-of-charge/445173/ > accessed 23 June 2020

[3] Gaurav Vivek, ‘Lawyer seeks SG Internvention’(The Wire, 22 June 2020) < https://thewire.in/law/migrant-workers-trains-solicitor-general> accessed 23 June 2020

[4] Bhadra Sinha, ‘Supreme Court could opt for combination of physical and virtual hearings after summer break’ (The Print, 14 June 2020) <https://theprint.in/judiciary/supreme-court-could-opt-for-combination-of-physical-and-virtual-hearings-after-summer-break/441503/> accessed 23 June 2020