Cameras in court will transform Indian judiciary
Judiciary has always resisted audio-video recording of court proceedings. But it may now be difficult to keep action-packed courtrooms away from lights and camera for long.
With the government reportedly proposing to introduce the facility of audio-video recording in courtrooms under Phase II of the eCourts Project, the judiciary should open doors to reap the benefits of technology for good.
The computerisation of courts has already enhanced operational efficiency of judiciary and now audio-video recording could help deliver quality justice by minimising scope for errors as well.
The need for recording court proceedings was felt in the past also but now there are compelling reasons to do so. Apart from the advantages of relying on transcripts at the end of long-drawn trials and at the stage of appeals like in some other countries, pressure seems to be mounting with dissenting voices from within.
Years ago, eminent jurist HM Seervai set the ball rolling by mooting recording of court proceedings to reign in a "much talking" judge and a counsel who thrived on lies. "The recollections of judges may differ, or if the case has gone for a long time, judges may have no recollection," he said, while stressing on the advantage.
Then came demands from civil society and litigants seeking transparency in functioning of the judiciary. While the Supreme Court frowned upon such demands, some judges subsequently did not mind recording their view in favour of the proposal. And now even the government has joined by backing the proposal primarily to usher in transparency and to deal with the menace of witnesses retracting statements during trial.
The law ministry, which had submitted a proposal for audio-video recording of court proceedings last year, is reportedly set to reiterate the proposal once again before the E-Committee of the Supreme Court (SC). While the SC E-Committee has been reluctant, the government is keen on introducing audio-video recording on a pilot basis starting from the subordinate courts.
The government, however, can effectively place its concerns as attorney general along with three secretaries are invitee members of the SC E-Committee.
The judiciary has had stood firm against video recording so far but now it would risk its image as dissenting voices have started coming from within.
In 2008, then chief justice KG Balakrishnan's bench refused to interfere with a high court order dismissing the demand. "What happened in the OJ Simpson case? A debate is still going on," a judge on the bench observed, referring to sensationalisation following telecast of the trial in the US. "If Parliament can allow recording of proceedings, why not courts?" petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan asked. The court, however, was not convinced.
Incidentally, the court failed to realise that recording of proceedings did not automatically mean broadcast.
A Calcutta High Court judge recently ordered recording of proceedings in a case on a request by one of the parties.
Earlier, while taking note of an application seeking recording of proceedings in a case, a Bombay High Court judge said in 2011 that since the video recording would involve scrutiny of the conduct of all the actors in the court, this application has possibly "more far-reaching consequences than the main petition itself". "It may change the course of conduct of the courts," he added.
In February 2011, justice SN Dhingra of the Delhi High Court, while considering Deepak Khosla's plea for recording court proceedings, highlighted the need for recording proceedings in trial courts. "In my view audio and video recording shall help smooth functioning of the district courts where the district judges and civil judges work in adverse circumstances and do not have power of contempt. When they refer matters of contempt to the high court pleas are taken that incident had not happened or a manipulated version was put forward," justice Dhingra, who had a vast experience as a judge in trial court, said while referring the matter to then chief justice for a decision.
Justice Dhingra turned out to be the minority voice on the issue. A bench presided over by then chief justice later refused to pass any order citing absence of any law in this regard.
Incidentally, the last Anti-Communal Violence Bill, which had to be withdrawn, had introduced a provision for video recording of communal violence trials showing it was practically possible. The Bill, if passed, could have warded off apprehensions which have kept courts away from camera. But the inclusion of the provision was in itself evidence of the fact that the block, if any, was not on the ground but in the mind.