Supreme Court Allows Video Conferencing in Matrimonial Cases Due to Pandemic: Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan vs. Navin Chauhan (22 January 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 January 2021

Citation: Review Petition (C) No.472 of 2018 in Transfer Petition (C) No.1252 of 2016

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a court order video conferencing for matrimonial disputes, especially when physical court hearings are not possible? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan vs. Navin Chauhan*. The core issue was whether the Family Court in Gautambudh Nagar, U.P., could conduct trial proceedings via video conferencing, considering a previous judgment that discouraged such practices in matrimonial matters. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the review petition, allowed video conferencing due to the ongoing pandemic.

The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The petitioner, Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan, had initially filed a Transfer Petition (C) No. 1252 of 2016, seeking the transfer of a case (HMA No. 487 of 2015) filed by the respondent, Navin Chauhan. The case was originally before the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. The petitioner wanted the case to be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket District, New Delhi.

The Supreme Court had dismissed the Transfer Petition, stating that the petitioner would not face significant inconvenience traveling between Gautambudh Nagar and Saket. However, the Court had directed that the trial be conducted at the Family Court in Gautambudh Nagar through video conferencing.

The petitioner then filed a Review Petition, arguing that video conferencing facilities were not available at the Gautambudh Nagar District Courts. Additionally, the petitioner cited a previous Supreme Court judgment in *Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh* (dated 09.10.2017), which had stated that video conferencing was not permissible in matrimonial matters.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial Transfer Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which directed the trial to be conducted through video conferencing at the Family Court, Gautambudh Nagar. The Review Petition was filed by the Petitioner on the grounds that there were no video conferencing facilities at Gautambudh Nagar District Courts and that video conferencing was not permissible in matrimonial matters as per the judgment in *Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh*.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework discussed in this judgment revolves around the permissibility of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court considered its previous judgment in *Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh*, which had discouraged video conferencing in such matters.

The judgment also indirectly touches upon the inherent powers of the Supreme Court to ensure justice, especially during the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated the use of video conferencing for all court proceedings.

Arguments

The petitioner, Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan, argued that:

• ✓ There were no video conferencing facilities available at the Gautambudh Nagar District Courts.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh* prohibited video conferencing in matrimonial matters.

The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly mentioned in the judgment. However, implicitly, the respondent’s position would be that the trial should proceed as directed by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• ✓ Whether the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P., could conduct the trial through video conferencing, given the lack of facilities and the previous judgment against it in matrimonial matters.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

• ✓ Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (09.10.2017), Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the petitioner to argue that video conferencing is not permissible in matrimonial matters.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court acknowledged the judgment in Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh which had earlier discouraged video conferencing in matrimonial matters. However, the Court distinguished this authority by stating that the present situation was different due to the ongoing pandemic, which necessitated the use of video conferencing for all court proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the extraordinary circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that physical functioning of the courts had been stopped since March 2020, and all proceedings were being conducted through video conferencing. This situation compelled the Court to allow video conferencing in this matrimonial matter, despite the previous ruling against it. The Court prioritized the continuation of judicial proceedings during the pandemic over the strict adherence to the previous ruling.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning is based on the unique circumstances created by the pandemic. The Court stated, “Due to the ongoing pandemic, physical functioning of the Courts has been stopped since March, 2020. Proceedings in all Courts are being conducted only through video conferencing.”

The Court further clarified, “In the normal course we would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per the judgment of this Court mentioned above. However, in the present situation where all proceedings are conducted through video conferencing, we direct the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to conduct the trial through video conferencing.”

The Court’s decision was not a departure from the legal position but a practical solution to ensure the continuation of judicial proceedings during the pandemic. The Court implicitly acknowledged the need to balance the legal principles with the practical realities of the situation.

The decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court allowed video conferencing in matrimonial matters due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite previous rulings against it.
• ✓ The decision highlights the Court’s flexibility in adapting to extraordinary circumstances while ensuring the continuation of judicial proceedings.
• ✓ This judgment sets a precedent for using video conferencing in similar situations where physical court hearings are not possible.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Family Court, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P., to conduct the trial through video conferencing.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in extraordinary circumstances, such as a pandemic, the Supreme Court can allow video conferencing in matrimonial matters, even if previous rulings had discouraged it. This decision does not change the general legal position but provides an exception based on the unique circumstances of the pandemic.

Conclusion

In *Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan vs. Navin Chauhan*, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition but allowed video conferencing for the matrimonial dispute due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision highlights the Court’s adaptability in ensuring the continuation of judicial proceedings during extraordinary circumstances. While acknowledging previous rulings against video conferencing in matrimonial matters, the Court prioritized the practical need for remote hearings during the pandemic.