Date of the Judgment: April 6, 2020
Citation: Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No. 5/2020
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, D.Y. Chandrachud, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a shift in how courts function. The Supreme Court of India, recognizing the need for social distancing, issued guidelines for court proceedings to be conducted via video conferencing. This order aimed to ensure continued access to justice while safeguarding public health during the pandemic. The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Case Background
The COVID-19 pandemic led to the implementation of social distancing measures to prevent the spread of the virus. As a result, the Supreme Court of India and High Courts adopted measures to reduce the physical presence of lawyers, litigants, court staff, and media representatives in courts. This was done to ensure the continued dispensation of justice while adhering to public health guidelines. The court recognized that technology could play a crucial role in maintaining court functions during this time.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ongoing | COVID-19 pandemic outbreak necessitating social distancing. |
| Prior to April 6, 2020 | Supreme Court and High Courts adopt measures to reduce physical presence in courts. |
| April 6, 2020 | Supreme Court issues directions for video conferencing in courts. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. It recognized the need for immediate measures to ensure the functioning of courts while adhering to social distancing norms.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue directions for the functioning of courts through video conferencing. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to make orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it. The court also referred to the e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project, which is part of the National e-Governance Plan, to highlight the existing technological infrastructure available in Indian courts.
The Court also took note of its own precedent in the case of State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], which recognized that the term ‘evidence’ includes electronic evidence and that video conferencing may be used to record evidence.
Arguments
The court did not hear arguments from any specific parties, as this was a suo motu action. However, the court considered the need for maintaining access to justice while adhering to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also considered the availability of technology to facilitate virtual court proceedings. The court considered the need to ensure that the courts continue to function effectively and efficiently, while ensuring the safety of all stakeholders.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Need for Social Distancing |
|
| Continued Access to Justice |
|
| Use of Technology |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense, as this was a suo motu action. However, the core issue before the court was:
- How to ensure the continued functioning of courts and access to justice during the COVID-19 pandemic while adhering to social distancing guidelines?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Ensuring Court Functioning and Access to Justice During Pandemic | The Court authorized the use of video conferencing technologies and directed the implementation of measures to reduce physical presence in courts. |
Authorities
The Court relied on the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to support the use of video conferencing for recording evidence, noting that it had already been judicially recognized. |
The Court also considered Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment
| Submission by the Court | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Need for Social Distancing | The Court directed measures to reduce physical presence in court premises. |
| Continued Access to Justice | The Court authorized the use of video conferencing to ensure continued functioning of the judicial system. |
| Use of Technology | The Court recognized the existing infrastructure and directed its use for court proceedings. |
The Court relied on the following authorities in its reasoning:
State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601]* was used to support the use of video conferencing for recording evidence. The Court noted that this case had already recognized the validity of using technology in court proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s primary concern was to ensure the continued functioning of the judicial system while prioritizing public health and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court emphasized the need for social distancing and recognized the role of technology in facilitating virtual court proceedings.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Public Health and Safety | 40% |
| Access to Justice | 35% |
| Technology Adoption | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the primary goal was to ensure the smooth functioning of courts during the pandemic. The Court’s decision was based on the need to balance access to justice with public health concerns.
The Court directed that all measures taken by the Supreme Court and High Courts to reduce physical presence in court premises and to secure the functioning of courts in consonance with social distancing guidelines would be deemed lawful. The Court authorized the use of video conferencing technologies and directed the High Courts to determine the modalities suitable for the temporary transition. The Court also directed that helplines be maintained to address any issues with the quality or audibility of video conferencing.
The following are direct quotes from the judgment:
“Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Constitution of India.”
“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.”
“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.”
There were no dissenting or concurring opinions. The judgment was a unanimous decision by the three-judge bench.
The decision has significant implications for future cases, as it establishes the legitimacy of using technology in court proceedings. It also sets a precedent for how courts can adapt to extraordinary circumstances while ensuring continued access to justice. The judgment also highlights the importance of technology in the judicial system and its potential for enhancing efficiency and accessibility.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Courts can use video conferencing to conduct proceedings.
- ✓ High Courts are authorized to determine the modalities for video conferencing.
- ✓ Evidence cannot be recorded without the mutual consent of both parties.
- ✓ Courts must provide video conferencing facilities for litigants who do not have access.
- ✓ Measures taken to reduce physical presence in courts are deemed lawful.
This judgment has a significant impact on the future of court proceedings in India, as it paves the way for the wider adoption of technology in the judicial system.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- All measures taken by the Supreme Court and High Courts to reduce physical presence in court premises are deemed lawful.
- The Supreme Court and all High Courts are authorized to adopt measures to ensure the robust functioning of the judicial system through video conferencing.
- Every High Court is authorized to determine the modalities for the temporary transition to video conferencing.
- Courts shall maintain a helpline for complaints regarding the quality of video conferencing.
- District Courts shall adopt the video conferencing mode prescribed by the concerned High Court.
- Courts shall provide video conferencing facilities for litigants who do not have access.
- Video conferencing shall be mainly employed for hearing arguments.
- Evidence shall not be recorded without the mutual consent of both parties.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court authorized the use of video conferencing for court proceedings to ensure continued access to justice during the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision expands the scope of technology in the judicial system and provides a framework for courts to adapt to extraordinary circumstances. This is a new position of law as it allows for the use of video conferencing in court proceedings, which was not explicitly addressed before this judgment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order on April 6, 2020, directed the use of video conferencing for court proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision aimed to balance the need for social distancing with the fundamental right to access justice. The court authorized the use of technology, directed the High Courts to determine modalities, and emphasized the need for continued functioning of the judicial system. This judgment has significant implications for the future of court proceedings in India, as it paves the way for the wider adoption of technology in the judicial system.