New Delhi: Even though the hon’ble Chief Justice of India had expressed his view on reservations over a suggestion to record court proceeding through audio-video recording with an aim of enhancing transparency and also prevent the witnesses from detracting from previously made statements, the Central Government had asked him is reconsider the matter once again. On 8th January, 2014, a meeting was held of the e-committee where the matter was raised up for discussion. But the then CJI had asked for postponing the matter as he had to discuss the issue with other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
D V Sadananda Gowda, Union Law Minister had send two requests to the CJI for reconsidering the matter. The Government says that many suggestions have been received favoring audio-video recording of court proceedings. This system will be first introduced in the subordinate court at the first stage. The said recording will assure transparency as the witnesses can’t go behind their statements. Moreover, this will lessen the number of pending litigations.
The Advisory Council of National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms in its agenda note stated that the delay in proceedings for re-recording of statements of the witness can be avoided. According to the estimate by the Ministry of Law there are nearly 3.64 crore cases pending in different courts especially in the subordinate courts. This system will also reduce irregularity in the proceedings and prevent the waste of precious time of the court.
In addition, efficiency of the courts can also be increased by the new system. The Ministry also said that the this will enhance the efficiency of the courts by delivering judgments and orders systematically. Last year, the Apex Court had dismissed petitions asking the court’s approval for recording of judicial proceedings in the audio-video mode. Moreover in 2014 another proposal was also submitted before the e-committee of the Supreme Court to include audio-video recording in Phase-II of the e-Courts Project. But this was also not approved by the top court.
Source: lawyerslaw.org (Our Media Partner)