Increased government action necessary during emergencies, duty of courts to ensure accountability: Justice DY Chandrachud

Source: www.financialexpress.com

To read this article online, go to link: https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/supreme-court-video-conferencing-coronavirus-medical-emergency-justice-dy-chandrachud-latest-update/1969657/

Justice DY Chandrachud said virtual court hearings cannot replace or be a substitute to physical courts as it constitutes the spine of the judicial system.

Sitting Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud said increased action on part of the government is required during a public health emergency such as the one the country is currently facing, but it is the duty of courts to ensure accountability and protect rights of citizens.

Speaking at a webinar organized by Nyaya Forum of National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad on the topic ‘Future of Virtual Courts and Access to Justice in India’ on Sunday, he said that all emergencies, including a public health crisis that we are in “vest substantial powers in the executive”.

“During a public health crisis, increased government action may be necessary to preserve public health and welfare. However, irrespective of governmental action and restrictions, it is above all, the duty of courts — civil, criminal and constitutional — to protect the rights of citizens and ensure governmental accountability and the rule of law,” Justice Chandrachud said.

With the coronavirus outbreak having disrupted not just normal lives but the justice delivery system as well, Justice Chandrachud, who heads the e-committee of the Supreme Court that is tasked with overseeing the digitisation of the court, said that virtual court hearings cannot replace or be a substitute to physical courts as it constitutes the spine of the judicial system.

He said virtual court hearings started because Covid-19 descended without warning and “we had no other choice”.

“I want to dissuade people from the idea that virtual court hearings are some sort of panacea. We had no choice in the pandemic but to resort to this. They will not be able to replace physical court hearings,” he said.

“We had to protect those who come to court – lawyers, litigants, media personnel, para-legal, interns,” the Justice added.

The Supreme Court is under complete shutdown due to the coronavirus threat and shifted to virtual court hearings in order to keep the virus at bay and ensure safety of lawyers, litigants and judges. In a circular issued on March 23, the court had suspended entry of lawyers and litigants inside the court premises and directed that only extremely urgent cases will be taken up for hearing. These cases are being heard by the top court video conferencing without the personal presence of lawyers.

Going by the seniority, Justice Chandrachud is in line to become the Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2022 and remain in office for a duration of two years.

Era of virtual courts

Source: Telangana Today (online)

To read this article online, go to the link: https://telanganatoday.com/era-of-virtual-courts

Application of IT must become a key element of judicial reforms in India which has over 3 crore pending cases

Virtual courts may well become an integral part of Indian judiciary as it braces up to adopt new technologies to guide the justice delivery system in the time of coronavirus pandemic. Under the prevailing circumstances of physical distancing, the judiciary is opting for virtual modes to ensure timely delivery of justice. The Supreme Court has issued a new standard operating procedure that facilitates e-filing and virtual hearing and has also set up a helpline to assist advocates in submitting the petitions. The apex court has been holding courts through video conferencing since March 25 due to the nationwide lockdown and had suspended the entry of advocates and other staff in view of the need to maintain physical distancing. The timing of sitting of the virtual courts is notified in the respective cause lists, which is published well in advance. These are timely developments to utilise the advances in the information and communications technology to deliver justice at a crucial time and under unprecedented circumstances. It must be pointed out that many countries had embraced virtual technologies long ago for speedy and hassle-free delivery of justice. The video and audio-enabled hearings save significant court costs in terms of building, staff, infrastructure and transportation for all the parties.

The apex court’s plan to work out some kind of a mixed model of virtual and actual courts is a welcome development. There is a need to boost the infrastructure required for seamless functioning of virtual courts like robust internet connectivity, installation of large screens and error-free web applications to enable smooth videoconferencing. Reforms to reduce the burden on Indian courts have been long overdue. The coronavirus pandemic has only accentuated the urgency to use technology to find solutions that minimise physical contact and provide an affordable form of access to justice. Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has spoken about the potential of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to help streamline the processes. The application of information technology must become one of the key elements of the judicial reforms in a country which has over three crore pending cases at various levels. Affordable technology-led solutions for easier resolution is an idea whose time has come. Technology startups engaged in innovative solutions can play a crucial role in harnessing the unlimited potential of technology to connect stakeholders in the justice delivery system and in finding solutions that are affordable and efficient. One of the key areas where these startups can disrupt the status quo is through technology-augmented solutions in remote dispute resolution. Online Dispute Resolution has the potential to become a game changer by erasing physical barriers and significantly reducing the cost of litigation.

Litigants unable to get justice through virtual courts: BCI

Source: The Tribune dated 21.05.2020

-- Satya Prakash

Public, advocates in dark as to what’s really going on in courts, says BCI.
The hearings have often been hit by technical glitches making it difficult for all the stakeholders.

As the court’s function via video-conferencing amid the COVID-19 crisis, Bar Council of India has complained that litigants were unable to get justice through virtual courts.

“Public and advocates are in the dark as to what is really going on in the various courts of the country,” said BCI which regulates the legal profession in India.

“...some people are trying to take undue advantage of lockdown and the legal profession is gradually being attempted to be highjacked by a few blessed Lawyers and selected Law-Firms who have high-level connections. The entire system is likely to go out of hands of common advocates,” BCI alleged, attributing the view to some advocates and bar associations.

In a meeting held here on Wednesday, BCI decided to consult state bar councils and bar associations on the resumption of in-person proceedings.

The Supreme Court, high courts and district courts have been functioning in a restricted manner via video-conferencing since the beginning of COVID-19 lockdown on March 24 as most of the court premises remained out of bounds for judges, lawyers and litigants alike. The hearings have often been hit by technical glitches making it difficult for all the stakeholders.

“On one hand cases of Covid-19 are increasing day by day and on the other, the problems of litigants and advocates are mounting.

Litigants are unable to get justice through the process of virtual courts...due to unsatisfactory Wi-Fi and other technical problems which are a common phenomenon. 

We cannot expect an effective hearing in this process. The public and Advocates are in the dark as to what is really going on in the various courts of the country,” BCI said.

It said the reports received from state bar councils and associations will be submitted to Chief Justice of India SA Bobde within a week.

Taking note of the difficulties faced by advocates practising in SC, BCI decided to approach the CJI and Justice DY Chandrachud, who heads the E-committee of the top court. A maximum of 5 links should be provided to the advocates of each side who apply for the links in a case, it depended.

Without consulting the Bar and without taking the Bar into confidence, if any decision is taken, the same was not going to succeed, BCI said.

Law as weapon

Source: Indian Express dated 21.05.2020

Misuse of Epidemic Diseases Act by government must stop. Else, court must step in to protect citizens’ freedoms

A dharna in Agra over the movement of buses to ferry migrant labour led to the arrest of the Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Ajay Kumar Lallu and two of his party colleagues — all three subsequently got bail. Amongst the laws weaponised by the UP police to detain the Opposition leaders is a late-19th century statute, The Epidemic Diseases Act. Drafted by the colonial state in 1897 “to take special measures and prescribe regulations” for “the better prevention of the dangerous epidemic diseases”, the law has been summoned in the past to deal with outbreaks of cholera, swine flu and dengue. But its heavy-handed and arbitrary use, or misuse, during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic is new. Patients, journalists and Opposition leaders have been at the receiving end of this blunt instrument that does not actually define an epidemic, leave alone a pandemic.

Of course, combating COVID-19 does require extensive surveillance, including identification of the carriers of the virus and their contacts. But in most parts of the world, including India, a growing body of literature has underlined that such extraordinary measures are best undertaken by taking citizens into confidence, using persuasion and involving the community. At several places, however, the state authorities are giving the go-by to these imperatives and asserting state power in heavy-handed ways, by taking cover under Clause 4 of the Epidemics Act — actions taken under the law are provided immunity from “legal proceedings” for they are deemed to have been “undertaken in good faith”. In early April, when knowledge of the virus was still uncertain among large sections of the people, an FIR was slapped against the family of a Bengaluru technician, who had contracted COVID-19, for “hiding information”, and they were charge-sheeted under the Epidemics Act. Also last month, the Mumbai Police invoked the law to arrest a journalist, alleging that his social media posts led to unrest among migrant workers in suburban Bandra.

A toxic mix of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 144 of the CrPC and the Epidemics Act may well be on its way to becoming the new sedition law, which has been invoked with disturbing frequency in the recent past to criminalise criticism and dissent. Last week, the Gujarat government combined the sedition law with the Disaster Management Act to charge a journalist for reporting that Chief Minister Vijay Rupani may be removed by the BJP High Command for his handling of the pandemic. Also last week, this paper reported that at least four FIRs have been filed against journalists in Himachal Pradesh for highlighting the condition of stranded labourers in the pandemic. The FIRs allege that these reports are “fake” and “sensational” news; the cases are being investigated. But governments must realise that the discourse on citizens’ rights and public health has moved on from the times when the colonial government charged Bal Gangadhar Tilak for sedition for criticising its handling of the 1897 bubonic plague. Else, the Supreme Court must intervene to allow people to voice their opinions freely during a crisis, and especially in a crisis, without the threat of their being criminalised.