Supreme Court Overrules Restrictions on Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Disputes: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) INSC 847 (9 October 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 October 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 847
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (Majority Opinion), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting Opinion).
Can technology bridge the gap in matrimonial disputes, or does it create more hurdles? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question, specifically addressing whether video conferencing can be used in family court proceedings. This case arose from a difference of opinion on the use of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes, particularly concerning its impact on reconciliation and confidentiality, and the court had to decide on the extent to which technology can be used in the process of justice.

Case Background

The case originated from transfer petitions filed before the Supreme Court, seeking the transfer of matrimonial cases from one state to another. The core issue was the hardship faced by parties, particularly wives, who had to travel long distances to attend court proceedings. The Supreme Court, while considering these transfer petitions, also took note of the fact that the matrimonial matters which are required to be dealt with expeditiously are delayed. The court was concerned about the difficulties faced by litigants traveling to the court and whether there was any possibility to avoid the same.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The matter was initially heard by a two-judge bench in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, which considered the possibility of using video conferencing to avoid the need for physical presence in court. Later, another two-judge bench in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, while dealing with similar transfer petitions, expressed reservations about the use of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes and referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration. This led to the present three-judge bench hearing the case.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 11 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: This section allows for proceedings to be held in camera (private) if the Family Court desires, and mandates it if either party requests it. The Court observed that “In every suit or proceedings to which this Act applies, the proceedings may be held in camera if the Family Court so desires and shall be so held if either party so desires.”
• Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984: This section outlines the duty of the Family Court to make efforts for settlement between parties to the matrimonial dispute. The Court noted that “In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit.”
• Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This provision mandates the court to make every effort to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. The Court observed that “it shall be the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties”
• Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section provides for proceedings to be in camera and stipulates that the proceeding may not be printed or published.
• Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This section grants the Supreme Court the power to transfer suits from one High Court to another. The Court noted that “On the application of a party, and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, the Supreme Court may, at any stage, if satisfied that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, direct that any suit, appeal or other proceedings be transferred from a High Court or other Civil Court in one State to a High Court or other Civil Court in any other State.”
• Order XLI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: This rule deals with the application for transfer under Article 139A(2) of the Constitution and Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Arguments

Arguments against Videoconferencing:

• The two-judge bench in Santhini argued that video conferencing could compromise the confidentiality and sensitivity required in matrimonial disputes, especially during reconciliation efforts.
• It was contended that the physical presence of parties is essential for effective reconciliation, as it allows for better communication and emotional bonding.
• The bench expressed concern that video conferencing could become a part of the court record, which is not desirable for reconciliation efforts.
• There was a concern that technology might override the statutory right of a party to have an in-camera hearing.

Arguments for Videoconferencing:

• The two-judge bench in Krishna Veni highlighted that video conferencing could provide a viable alternative to transferring cases, especially where both parties face equal difficulties in attending court.
• It was argued that technology could facilitate access to justice, particularly for those who face financial or logistical challenges in attending court proceedings.
• It was also argued that video conferencing is gender neutral and ensures that one of the spouses cannot procrastinate and delay the conclusion of the trial.
• It was contended that video conferencing does not negate the postulates of an in-camera trial and that the same level of privacy can be maintained.

Submissions of the Parties:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The arguments for videoconferencing were innovative in that they sought to leverage technology to address practical challenges in the legal system, while also ensuring that the core principles of justice are upheld. The arguments against videoconferencing were rooted in the traditional understanding of the legal process, particularly in the context of family disputes.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the directions issued by this Court in Krishna Veni Nagam need reconsideration on the aspect of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes.
2. Whether video conferencing can be a mode to regulate matrimonial proceedings.
3. Whether the Family Court can direct proceedings to be conducted through video conferencing.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court overruled the decision in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam [(2017) 4 SCC 150]* to the extent that it allowed for video conferencing in transfer petitions. The Court held that while video conferencing can be used in family court proceedings, it cannot be directed in transfer petitions.
• The Court referred to various cases, including Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel [(2000) 9 SCC 255]*, Lalita A. Ranga v. Ajay Champalal Ranga [(2000) 9 SCC 355]*, Deepa v. Anil Panicker [(2000) 9 SCC 441]*, Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi [(2000) 10 SCC 350]*, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480]*, Neelam Bhatia v. Satbir Singh Bhatia [(2004) 13 SCC 436]*, Soma Choudhury v. Gourab Choudhaury [(2004) 13 SCC 462]*, Rajesh Rani v. Tej Pal [(2007) 15 SCC 597]*, Vandana Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar Sharma [(2008) 11 SCC 768]*, and Anju Ohri v. Varinder Ohri [(2007) 15 SCC 556]* to highlight the practice of transferring matrimonial cases based on the difficulties faced by the wife.
• The Court referred to cases like State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601]*, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 3 SCC 284]*, Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v. State of W.B. [(2011) 10 SCC 283]*, and Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 15 SCC 330]* to discuss the use of video conferencing in various court proceedings.
• The Court referred to cases like Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others [(2014) 6 SCC 353]*, K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida [(2003) 4 SCC 166]*, and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705]* to emphasize the role of Family Courts in speedy settlement of disputes.
• The Court referred to cases like Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli [(2008) 7 SCC 673]*, Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [(1973) 1 SCC 840]*, and Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla [(2010) 4 SCC 409]* to highlight the importance of the welfare of the child in custody matters.
• The Court referred to cases like Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd v. Audrey D’costa and another [(1987) 2 SCC 469]*, Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others [(1997) 6 SCC 241]*, Arun Kumar Agrawal and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others [(2010) 9 SCC 218]*, Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others [(2013) 4 SCC 1]*, Charu Khurana and others v. Union of India and others [(2015) 1 SCC 192]*, and Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2016) 9 SCC 541]* to emphasize gender equality and the dignity of women.
• The Court referred to Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India & others [(2017) 10 SCC 1]* to highlight the importance of privacy and individual freedom.
• The Court referred to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(1966) 3 SCR 744]* to discuss the principle of trial in camera.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, including the need to balance the rights of parties in matrimonial disputes, the importance of reconciliation, and the potential of technology to facilitate access to justice. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The need to protect the statutory right of parties to have in-camera hearings.
• The importance of reconciliation in matrimonial disputes.
• The potential of technology to facilitate access to justice.
• The need to balance the rights of both parties in matrimonial disputes.

Final Order

The Supreme Court’s final order included the following:

• The directions issued by the Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam [(2017) 4 SCC 150] were overruled to the extent that they allowed for video conferencing in transfer petitions.
• The Court held that video conferencing can be used in Family Court proceedings if settlement fails and both parties consent, or if the Family Court deems it appropriate.
• The Court held that video conferencing cannot be directed in transfer petitions.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud delivered a dissenting opinion, arguing that:

• Video conferencing should be allowed in transfer petitions to facilitate access to justice.
• The use of technology should not be viewed as a threat to confidentiality but as a tool to enhance the efficiency of the justice system.
• The Court should not be overly concerned about the potential misuse of technology.

Key Differences: The dissenting opinion differed from the majority opinion in that it emphasized the need to embrace technology to facilitate access to justice and reduce the burden on parties in matrimonial disputes. Justice Chandrachud argued that the potential benefits of video conferencing outweigh the concerns about confidentiality and misuse of technology.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has had a significant impact on the use of technology in matrimonial disputes. It has clarified the position of video conferencing in family court proceedings and has provided guidelines for its use. The judgment has also highlighted the importance of balancing the rights of parties, the need for reconciliation, and the potential of technology to facilitate access to justice. The impact of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• Clarification on the Use of Video Conferencing: The judgment has clarified that video conferencing cannot be directed in transfer petitions but can be used in family court proceedings with the consent of both parties or if the court deems it appropriate.
• Emphasis on Reconciliation: The judgment has emphasized the importance of reconciliation and has held that video conferencing should not undermine the reconciliation process.
• Facilitation of Access to Justice: The judgment has recognized the potential of technology to facilitate access to justice, particularly for those who face financial or logistical challenges.
• Balancing of Rights: The judgment has emphasized the need to balance the rights of both parties in matrimonial disputes, ensuring that neither party is disadvantaged.

Flowchart

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh has provided a balanced approach to the use of video conferencing in matrimonial disputes. While it has overruled the earlier decision to allow video conferencing in transfer petitions, it has also recognized the potential of technology to facilitate access to justice. The judgment has emphasized the importance of reconciliation and has provided guidelines for the use of video conferencing in family court proceedings. The judgment is a significant step towards modernizing the legal system while ensuring that the core principles of justice are upheld.