In a first, a sessions court in Karnataka, evidence of victims of bonded labour was ordered to be taken through video conferencing. The third Additional and Sessions Judge, Anekal even allowed such deposition of 3 witnesses in the case via video conferencing from a civil court in Bolangir.

The case pertains to 2014, when the anti-human trafficking unit, along with the district administration and the police arrested a brick kiln owner for trafficking people and employing them as bonded labourers. A senior advocate called this move to be unprecedented coming from a lower court and said, “Witnesses fail to depose before the court due to various reasons, including fear of the accused. Allowing them to depose from their hometowns will reduce such incidents”.

The International Justice Mission (IJM) which works for rescue and rehabilitation of bonded labourers welcomed the order and said, “This has the potential to set a precedent for future bonded labour and trafficking cases, whereby victims can depose via video conferencing from their native places. It may also assist in the speedy and efficient disposal of bonded labour cases,”

State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B Desai[1]

Section 273 of CrPC deals with “Evidence to be taken in presence of accused”

“Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.”

The Supreme Court had held that in a video conference the accused and the pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact, the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded court room. Facility by play back would enable better observation of demeanour. The court also dispensed with the personal physical attendance of the accused and held that presence of the pleader of the accused is deemed to be presence of the accused and the word “presence” used in section 273 can be constructive presence and it does not have a restricted meaning of physical presence.

Since after the apex court judgment of 2003 many courts have adopted the practice and among the many such cases, one may quote SujayMitravs State of West Bengal[2] in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore had allowed deposition of the complainant who was living in Ireland and the same when it went into appeal, was affirmed by the Calcutta High Court as it found no infirmity in the order allowing evidence through video conferencing.

It was reported in January 2019 that the Madras High Court issued rules relating to video conference facilities thus enabling the courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to record evidences and submissions form witnesses or persons involved in court proceedings where it would be expensive, inconvenient or otherwise not desirable for a person to attend the court in person. The notification read, “An over-riding factor is that the use of video conferencing in any particular case must be consistent with furthering the interest of justice and should cause minimal disadvantage to the parties.”

The lower courts are the epicentre of the criminal justice system and such precedents being applied by lower courts shows their readiness to accept change and make justice delivery effective, efficient and their endeavour to improve the system clearly shows. This not only furthers the interest of justice in terms of speedy trials which avoids adjournments due to inability of witness to attend in person, but also proves as a foolproof system in the interest of witness protection. Although India has a long path to tread with respect to witness protection, the practice of recording evidence via video conference is a big step and will go a long way in furthering protection to witnesses in criminal cases.

Related:

Court allows trafficking victims to depose from Odisha

Tamil Nadu, Puducherry courts to record evidence through video conference facility

The post Lower Courts warming up to the idea of taking evidence via Video Conference appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Thiruvarur district court took, on average, two years to dispose a civil case–the best among Tamil Nadu’s courts. Identifying high-performing lower courts and replicating their best practices can make an immediate impact to reduce pendency of cases.
 
India’s judicial delays are legendary, and its shortage of judges well-known, as IndiaSpend has reported (here, here and here). Yet, despite the constraints, some courts manage to perform better than others, sometimes significantly so. Data can help identify such courts, as well as their innovations and best practices, so that these can be replicated in other courts.
 
India has over 600 district courts. Identifying the high performers and replicating their best practices in other courts can make an immediate impact.
 
Here’s an example from Tamil Nadu.
 
Tamil Nadu illustrates India’s problem
 
Without standardisation in data across lower courts, their performance cannot be compared directly. So, we studied Tamil Nadu, whose average duration of pendency of cases approximates the national average.
 

 
Also, the Madras High Court is one of the few in the country whose latest annual report, for 2015, provides a detailed analysis of the lower courts under its jurisdiction.

 
Civil case takes, on average, three years to conclude
 
Within Tamil Nadu, let’s identify the laggard courts.
 

 
The state average for pendency duration of civil cases is 2.95 years–a civil case takes about three years to reach a conclusion. Ariyalur is the worst performing district in this regard–a civil case takes 4.65 years on average, that is, 50% slower than the state average.
 
Thiruvarur performs the best with an average pendency duration of just two years.

 
For criminal cases, average pendency duration is 3.23 years for all of Tamil Nadu. Madurai performs exceedingly well with an average pendency duration of 1.75 years, while Perambalur is the slowest with an average pendency duration of 5.29 years. Kancheepuram performs poorly in both civil and criminal cases, being significantly slower than the state average–it takes four years to resolve civil cases as against the state average of three, and takes 4.3 years to resolve criminal cases, as opposed to the state average of 3.2 years.
 
Cases accumulate when the rate of disposal is lower than the rate at which new cases are instituted. Tamil Nadu accumulated 43,973 cases in 2015. Of these, 36,945 were civil and 7,028 criminal cases.
 
Here’s a look at the best and worst performing district courts with respect to case accumulation.
 

 
First, the civil cases: Of the 32 districts in Tamil Nadu, only five are disposing of more cases than the number of cases instituted, with Ariyalur performing the best and Chennai the worst.
 
Chennai lower courts accumulate more than 6,000 civil cases each year, while Ariyalur courts dispose of 1,000 cases from its pending pile each year. If this continues, Ariyalur courts will dispose of all their pending cases in nine years, after accounting for new cases that will be instituted each year.
 
The top three cities of Tamil Nadu–Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai–have the highest case accumulation rate.
 

 
Next, the criminal cases: Chennai lower courts perform the best in disposing of criminal cases–they conclude 7,700 criminal cases more than instituted each year. At this rate, Chennai will dispose of all its pending cases in 5.4 years. This is far better than any other district in the state.
 
Coimbatore’s lower courts are the slowest in disposing of criminal cases too.
 
What vacancies have to do with efficiency
 
We also analysed the number of judicial vacancies across all lower courts in Tamil Nadu. There are no significant differences in the number of vacancies between various lower courts, so the huge difference in their performances cannot be explained solely by shortage of judges.
 
The answer would seem to lie in procedural innovations, which needs to be analysed and documented at the high performing courts.
 
Our key point is: District courts can learn from each other’s successes and failures. For example, Chennai courts may learn from Ariyalur courts how to better dispose of civil cases, and may learn from their own experience with disposing of criminal cases.
 
A nationwide analysis is possible if we have standardised data to compare lower courts across the country. There is an urgent need for collecting case data in a structured and standardised format across the various courts in India. This will enable deeper insights and precise policy prescriptions.
 
While long-term issues such as shortage of judges grab policymakers’ attention, they must also tackle the immediate problems. In the near term, immediate improvements are possible by horizontally replicating proven procedural innovations.
 
(Mathur is the Executive Director at Vision India Foundation, a non-profit policy research and training organisation based in New Delhi. Prasath is a Research Intern with Vision India Foundation.)

Courtesy: India Spend
 
 

The post Why Judicial Reform Should Start With Lower Courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.