Videoconferencing
Decisions rendered in the context of videoconferencing
see also : Trial in camera
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 815 the proceedings related to recording of evidence where the witness was in a foreign country.
The question that fell for consideration was whether a Division Bench of the High Court, while considering a memo for listing an appeal restored for fresh hearing, on grant of application for review by a co-ordinate Bench, could refuse to act upon the order of review on the ground that the said order made by a Bench different from the Bench which passed the original order granting review is a nullity. We need not dilate upon what ultimately the Court said. What is necessary to observe is what arrangement should be made in case of a High Court where there are Principal Seat and Circuit Benches and Judges move from one Bench to another for some time and decide the matters and review is filed.
Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2011) 15 SCC 330 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 473
"... when two Judges heard the matter at a Circuit Bench, the chances of both Judges sitting again at that place at the same time, may not arise. But the question is in considering the applications for review, whether the wholesome principle behind Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code and Chapter 3 Rule 5 of the High Court Rules providing that the same Judges should hear it, should be dispensed with merely because of the fact that the Judges in question, though continue to be attached to the Court are sitting at the main Bench, or temporarily at another Bench. In the interests of justice, in the interests of consistency in judicial pronouncements and maintaining the good judicial traditions, an effort should always be made for the review application to be heard by the same Judges, if they are in the same Court. Any attempt to too readily provide for review applications to be heard by any available Judge or Judges should be discouraged."
And further:-
"With the technological innovations available now, we do not see why the review petitions should not be heard by using the medium of video conferencing."
Matrimonial Proceedings - Conduct of proceedings through Video conferencing - Though In the normal course we would not have directed video conferencing in respect of matrimonial matters as per the judgment of this Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, 2017 SCeJ 001 – Covid19 - However, in the present situation where all proceedings are conducted through video conferencing, we direct the Family Court, to conduct the trial through video conferencing - Family Courts Act, 1984.
In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr., (2005) 3 SCC 284 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 705 the controversy pertained to a criminal trial under Section 302 IPC wherein the Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed shifting of the accused from a jail in Patna to Tihar Jail at Delhi. In that context, the Court permitted conducting of the trial with the aid of videoconferencing.
. In Budhadev Karmaskar (4) v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 10 SCC 283 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 285 the issue of videoconferencing had arisen as the lis related to rehabilitation of sex workers keeping in view the interpretation of this Court of `life' to mean life of dignity.
Admittedly, electronic videoconferencing is cheaper and facilitates to avoid delay of justice. Wherever there is a linkage facility available, then the attendance of the witness may be dispensed with and examination may be done through videoconferencing. Order 18 Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for recording evidence either by writing or mechanically in the presence of the Judge. … The mechanical process also includes electronic process for both the court and the Commissioner. If the law courts do not permit the technology development in the court proceedings, it would be lagging behind compared to the other sectors. The technology is only a tool and necessary safeguards have to be taken for the purpose of recording evidence through audio-video link.
V. Srivatsan v. S.R. Gayathri 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 5585
"Technology and Family Law Hearings” Western Journal of Legal Studies (2012), Vol. 5 (2012) speaks about the usage of “Skype” (a videoconferencing software) in the context of family law arbitrations
“… The witnesses were located in different countries and in different time zones. Despite this, the use of Skype facilitated a mutually convenient schedule for the witnesses and counsel. The witnesses had access to the agreed exhibits, took the oath over video, and were cross-examined. The corollary is that there is less opportunity to observe if witnesses are testifying under any form of impairment, if they are being coached off-screen, or if they are reading from notes that are not part of the record. There was some concern about the delay of a witness’s facial expression when a damaging document or picture was unveiled mid-testimony. However, the advantages to videoconferencing technologies and the costs saved outweighed the disadvantages of a face-to-face cross-examination.”
In P v. C Case No. [2004] OJ No. 200 ONCJ N, decided on 16-6-2006 (Can Ont Court), the Ontario Court of Justice in Canada allowed testimony by the internet-based videoconferencing program Skype, despite the lack of clarity in the Ontario Family Law Rules on this issue, in situations where a Judge sees it fit. It was held:
“36. It is clear to me that the balance of convenience on this motion favours the applicant. With the conditions which I set out. … the respondent should suffer little or no prejudice in his counsel’s ability to cross-examine. The cross-examination will be conducted in real time, and the “lag” which counsel fears in the transmission of questions and answers should not exist. Requiring the applicant and her spouse to travel to T.O would have a negative impact on their already financially-stretched household, and would be damaging to the children’s best interests.
37. Cross-examination of the applicant and Mr B.M by Skype will be permitted. The applicant shall bear any of the costs incidental to facilitating this videoconference. The applicant’s counsel shall contact court administration well in advance of the trial to ensure that the connection between the facilities to be used in D. and Courtroom 1-E in T.O is effective.”
Edmonton (City) v. Lovat Tunnel Equipment Inc (2000) 260 AR 259 (QB), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench set out guidelines for information to be stated in applications for allowing hearings through videoconferencing
“1. The relevance of the evidence which it is anticipated that the witness will give and why that evidence is necessary to their case;
2. The reasons why they suggest that videoconferencing should be employed, bearing in mind that Rule 216.1 requires that there be a “good reason” for the court to allow the admission of such evidence. If the applicant intends to argue that cost and inconvenience are factors which should be taken into consideration … some evidence would be presented as to the anticipated time and costs associated with videoconferencing as opposed to alternate means of procuring the evidence;
3. the logistical and technical arrangements that they have made both here and in the place from which they propose that the witness give their evidence. … Counsel must ensure that the witness will have access at the appropriate time to a clear copy of any exhibit to which their attention may be directed during the course of their testimony which presumably can be done via a fax machine at both ends of the videoconference…. [S]ome efforts would be made by the person administering the oath to ensure that there is no scripting of the evidence. Also, a tape of the videoconference should be made.”