Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Basudha Chakraborty & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Neeta Chakraborty – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) D.No(s). 23582 of 2024*
Decided On : 20-05-2024
Criminal Law – Examination of Witnesses – Appearance in Court through virtual mode – Dispute that High Court is seized of arises out of a marital discord between spouses and situation, prima facie, was not such so as to call for Court’s insistence for personal presence of both petitioners including ailing petitioner no.2 by taking an arduous journey from a distant place like Mumbai despite his medical conditions – Despite advancement of science and technology and with introduction of facilities for virtual hearing in High Courts, Court did not consider it desirable to grant liberty to petitioners to appear before it through virtual mode – If Court thought it fit to interact and bring about a settlement between parties, attempt to achieve it by allowing petitioners to attend proceedings through virtual mode ought to have been made – Impugned order is bound to operate harshly against petitioners – Court is expected to exercise restraint unless any party repeatedly acts in breach of its order to undermine its dignity, prestige and majesty, thereby attracting contempt jurisdiction – Exercise of discretion judiciously could have prevented proceedings from reaching this Court – Operation of order requiring personal appearance of both petitioners stayed. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners did not appear before High Court on 14th May, 2024. Impugned order requires Registrar of such Court named therein to request Registrar General, High Court of Bombay “to intimate concerned Police Station to produce both petitioners before court on next date of hearing”,
Findings of Court:
Not only did petitioner no. 2 undergo an organ transplant in recent past, he is afflicted by other ailments too calling for a surgery thus making it inadvisable for him to travel to Kolkata for attending court proceedings physically.
Result : Impugned order stayed. Directions issued.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court of India addressed an issue regarding the personal appearance of petitioners in court proceedings, specifically in a matrimonial dispute. The Court emphasized that with advancements in science and technology, virtual hearings are permissible and should be considered, especially for parties who face medical or logistical hardships [judgement_act_referred: Court’s observations].
The case involved petitioners who did not appear before the High Court on the scheduled date. The order requiring their physical presence was challenged, particularly because one petitioner had recently undergone an organ transplant and was suffering from other medical conditions that made travel inadvisable (!) .
The Court found that the High Court's insistence on personal appearance, despite being informed of the petitioner's health issues, was harsh and unjustified. It highlighted that the medical conditions should have been taken into account, and virtual appearance could have been permitted to avoid unnecessary hardship (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the dispute was primarily a marital discord and did not warrant the physical presence of both petitioners, especially given their medical conditions and the availability of virtual hearing facilities. The Court suggested that efforts to facilitate settlement could have been made through virtual means (!) .
The Court observed that the order requiring personal appearance was likely to operate harshly against the petitioners and emphasized the importance of exercising restraint and discretion. It indicated that such orders should be balanced against the circumstances and the dignity of the parties involved (!) .
Ultimately, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order requiring the petitioners' personal appearance and granted them the liberty to appear through virtual mode, considering their medical conditions and the circumstances of the case (!) .
The Court underscored the importance of judicial restraint and the use of technology to ensure justice is accessible and humane, especially for parties facing genuine hardships (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the Court's approach towards balancing procedural requirements with compassion and technological facilitation in judicial proceedings.
Aggrieved by the order dated 14th May, 2024 passed by the High Court at Calcutta on a criminal revisional application, the petitioners in such application are before us.
2. Issue notice, returnable in the week commencing 15th July, 2024.
3. The petitioners did not appear before the High Court on 14th May, 2024. The impugned order requires the Registrar of such Court named therein to request the Registrar General, High Court of Bombay “to intimate the concerned Police Station to produce both the petitioners before the court on the next date of hearing”, i.e., 22nd May, 2024.
4. A previous order of the same Court dated 31st January, 2024 notes the Court’s desire to interact with the parties to the proceedings before it and with that in view, the parties were required to be present before it on 8th April, 2024.
5. On 8th April, 2024, the petitioner no.1 was present before the Court physically. The petitioner no.2, however, could not remain present due to medical issues which were duly brought to the attention of the Court and noted by it; yet, the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 8th April, 2024 records, rather strangely, that the Court “insists the presence of the petitioner no.2 on the next date of hearing”, i.e. 14th May, 2024. An observation appears to have been made by the Court to the effect that the medical documents which were filed did not reflect the petitioner no.2 being so medically incapacitated that he could not appear on 14th May, 2024, as fixed by the earlier order dated 08th April, 2024.
6. Owing to the petitioner no.2 not remaining present on 14th May, 2024, both the petitioners are now required to personally remain present in Court on 22nd May, 2024 on being produced by the police.
7. We have failed to comprehend the necessity of the direction of the High Court insisting for personal presence of the petitioner no.2 in Court in-person, despite being apprised that the petitioner no.2 has been suffering from severe medical conditions. From the materials placed on record we find that not only did the petitioner no.2 undergo an organ transplant in the recent past, he is afflicted by other ailments too calling for a surgery thus making it inadvisable for him to travel to Kolkata for attending court proceedings physically. That apart, the petitioner no.1 had physically appeared before the Court on 8th April, 2024 in deference to the order dated 31st January, 2024, yet, she too has been ordered to be produced in court by the police without apparent justification.
8. We are also at loss to comprehend as to why despite the advancement of science and technology and with the introduction of facilities for virtual hearing in the High Courts, the Court did not consider it desirable to grant liberty to the two petitioners to appear before it through the virtual mode.
9. The dispute that the High Court is seized of arises out of a marital discord between the spouses and the situation, prima facie, was not such so as to call for the Court’s insistence for personal presence of both the petitioners including the ailing petitioner no.2 by taking an arduous journey from a distant place like Mumbai despite his medical conditions. If the Court thought it fit to interact and bring about a settlement between the parties, an attempt to achieve it by allowing the petitioners to attend proceedings through the virtual mode ought to have been made.
10. The impugned order is bound to operate harshly against the petitioners. We expect the Court to exercise restraint unless any party repeatedly acts in breach of its order to undermine its dignity, prestige and majesty, thereby attracting the contempt jurisdiction. Exercise of discretion judiciously could have prevented the proceedings from reaching this Court.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation in staying operation of the order requiring the personal appearance of both the petitioners on 22nd May, 2024. Since the revisional application is fixed for consideration on that date, w
Appearance in Court through virtual mode – With advancement of science and technology and with introduction of facilities for virtual hearing in High Courts, Court can allow parties to attend proceed....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the rights of the accused with the practicalities of the legal process, especially in cases involving elderly accused individua....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant exemption from personal appearance and allow virtual hearings, considering the provisions of Cr.P.C., relevant case....
The court allowed a physically incapacitated accused to appear via virtual mode for judgment pronouncement, emphasizing the use of technology to ensure justice.
The court underscored the application of Section 205, Cr.P.C. allowing virtual representation for an aged petitioner in light of health issues, emphasizing the importance of technology in facilitatin....
The court emphasized the need for the Trial Court to consider the petitioner's request for personal appearance sympathetically, taking into account the inconvenience and financial implications on the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
