2020 (4) TMI 191 - SC - Indian Laws

Guidelines for Functioning of Court during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic - HELD THAT - Courts at all levels respond to the call of social distancing and ensure that court premises do not contribute to the spread of virus. This is not a matter of discretion but of duty. Indeed, Courts throughout the country particularly at the level of the Supreme Court and the High Courts have employed video conferencing for dispensation of Justice and as guardians of the Constitution and as protectors of individual liberty governed by the rule of law. Taking cognizance of the measures adopted by this court and by the High Courts and District Courts, it is necessary for this court to issue directions by taking recourse to the jurisdiction conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution. The concerned courts shall maintain a helpline to ensure that any complaint in regard to the quality or audibility of feed shall be communicated during the proceeding or immediately after its conclusion failing which no grievance in regard to it shall be entertained thereafter - The District Courts in each State shall adopt the mode of Video Conferencing prescribed by the concerned High Court. The presiding officer shall have the power to restrict entry of persons into the court room or the points from which the arguments are addressed by the advocates. No presiding officer shall prevent the entry of a party to the case unless such party is suffering from any infectious illness.

Summary

Issues:
Implementation of measures for social distancing in courts due to COVID-19 outbreak; Use of technology for dispensation of justice; Authority of courts to adopt video conferencing technologies; Modalities for transitioning to video conferencing; Maintenance of quality in video conferencing proceedings; Access to video conferencing facilities for litigants; Restrictions on entry into court premises; Duration of the directions issued.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the necessity of implementing measures to ensure social distancing in courts amidst the COVID-19 outbreak. It emphasizes the importance of cooperation from all individuals and institutions in reducing virus transmission. The use of technology, specifically video conferencing, is highlighted as a means to continue dispensing justice effectively while adhering to social distancing guidelines. The judgment acknowledges the advancements in technology that have enabled the judiciary to conduct proceedings virtually without compromising legal principles.

Furthermore, the judgment references a previous court precedent recognizing electronic evidence and the use of video conferencing for recording evidence. It stresses the duty of courts to respond to the call for social distancing, making it a mandatory obligation rather than a matter of discretion. The judgment authorizes the Supreme Court and High Courts to adopt measures for the robust functioning of the judicial system through video conferencing technologies.

The judgment empowers each High Court to determine suitable modalities for transitioning to video conferencing based on the state's judicial system and public health situation. It outlines specific directives regarding the maintenance of quality in video conferencing proceedings, access to facilities for litigants without means, and restrictions on entry into court premises to prevent virus spread. These directions are issued under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure the delivery of justice during the pandemic.

Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of cooperation from all stakeholders in successfully implementing the directives to address the challenges posed by the COVID-19 outbreak. These directions are to remain in effect until further orders, with a review scheduled after four weeks to assess their continued applicability and effectiveness in ensuring the judiciary's response to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic.