SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A.BOBDE, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
IN RE: GUIDELINES FOR COURT FUNCTIONING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC
SUO MOTU WRIT (CIVIL) NO.5 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2020
(A) Corona Pandemic – Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in implementation of measures designed to reduce transmission of virus00Scaling down of conventional operations within precincts of courts is a measure in that direction – Access to justice is fundamental to preserve rule of law in democracy envisaged by Constitution of India – Challenges occasioned by outbreak of COVID-19 have to be addressed while preserving constitutional commitment to ensuring delivery of and access to justice to those who seek it – It is necessary to ensure compliance with social distancing guidelines issued from time to time by various health authorities, Government of India and States – Court hearings in congregation must necessarily become an exception during this period – Faced with unprecedented and extraordinary outbreak of a pandemic, it is necessary that Courts at all levels respond to call of social distancing and ensure that court premises do not contribute to spread of virus – This is not a matter of discretion but of duty. (Paras 2 and 5)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Administration of Justice – Modern technology has enabled courts to enhance quality and effectiveness of administration of justice – Technology has facilitated advances in speed, accessibility and connectivity which enable dispensation of justice to take place in diverse settings and situations without compromising core legal principles of adjudication – Indian courts have been proactive in embracing advancement in technology in judicial proceedings – Indian judiciary has incorporated Information and Communication Technology systems through e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts Project) as part of National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) – Robust infrastructure in place has reduced conventional impediments and legal uncertainty surrounding use of virtual courts – ICT enabled infrastructure is available across all courts including district judiciary which constitutes initial interface of court system with the citizen – Courts throughout country particularly at level of Supreme Court and High Courts have employed video conferencing for dispensation of Justice and as guardians of Constitution and as protectors of individual liberty governed by rule of law – Taking cognizance of measures adopted by this court and by High Courts and District Courts, it is necessary for this court to issue directions by taking recourse to jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of Constitution – Elaborate directions issued. (Paras 3, 5 and 6)
Facts of the Case:
Recent outbreak of COVID-19 (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, para legal personnel and representatives of the electronic and print media in courts across the country and to ensure the continued dispensation of justice.
Findings of the Court:
Faced with the unprecedented and extraordinary outbreak of a pandemic, it is necessary that Courts at all levels respond to the call of social distancing and ensure that court premises do not contribute to the spread of virus. This is not a matter of discretion but of duty.
Result : Directions issued.
ORDER
1. The recent outbreak of COVID-19 (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, para legal personnel and representatives of the electronic and print media in courts across the country and to ensure the continued dispensation of justice.
2. Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down of conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Constitution of India. The challenges occasioned by the outbreak of COVID-19 have to be addressed while preserving the constitutional commitment to ensuring the delivery of and access to justice to those who seek it. It is necessary to ensure compliance with social distancing guidelines issued from time to time by various health authorities, Government of India and States. Court hearings in congregation must necessarily become an exception during this period.
3. Modern technology has enabled courts to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the administration of justice. Technology has facilitated advances in speed, accessibility and connectivity which enable the dispensation of justice to take place in diverse settings and situations without compromising the core legal principles of adjudication. Indian courts have been proactive in embracing advancement in technology in judicial proceedings. The Indian judiciary has incorporated Information and Communication Technology systems through the e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts Project) as part of the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). The robust infrastructure in place has reduced conventional impediments and legal uncertainty surrounding the use of virtual courts. ICT enabled infrastructure is available across all courts including the district judiciary which constitutes the initial interface of the court system with the citizen.
4. The use of technology found judicial recognition in precedent of this Court in State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601. This Court held that the term ‘evidence’ includes electronic evidence and that video conferencing may be used to record evidence. It observed that developments in technology have opened up the possibility of virtual courts which are similar to physical courts. The Court held:
“Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place…Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence… In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other… Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”.”
5. Faced with the unprecedented and extraordinary outbreak of a pandemic, it is necessary that Courts at all levels respond to the call of social distancing and ensure that court premises do not contribute to the spread of virus. This is not a matter of discretion but of duty. Indeed, Courts throughout the country particularly at the level of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have employed video conferencing for dispensation of Justice and as guardians of the Constitution and as protectors of individual liberty governed by the rule of law. Taking cognizance of the measures adopted by this court and by the High Courts and District C
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.