Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

Rajasthan High Court Notifies Video Conferencing Rules For Courts

Posted in: Judiciary
Sat, Aug 21, 21, 17:09, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5181
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.

In a positive, significant, much needed and worth emulating decision by all the High Courts in our country, the Rajasthan High Court has very rightly, remarkably and recently in its notification dated August 2, 2021 in pursuance to rule 1(i) of Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 has notified the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.

It would be in the fitness of things to first and foremost mention the general principles governing video conferencing as enunciated in Chapter II. It runs as follows: 3. General Principles Governing Video Conferencing

 

  1. Video conferencing facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings conducted by the Court.
  2. All proceedings conducted by a Court via video conferencing shall be judicial proceedings and all the courtesies and protocols applicable to a physical Court shall apply to these virtual proceedings. The protocol provided in Schedule I shall be adhered to for proceedings conducted by way of video conferencing.
  3. All relevant statutory provisions applicable to judicial proceedings including provisions of the CPC, CrPC, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (abbreviated hereafter as the Evidence Act), and Information Technology Act, 2000 (abbreviated hereafter as the IT Act), shall apply to proceedings conducted by video conferencing.
  4. Subject to maintaining independence, impartiality and credibility of judicial proceedings, and subject to such directions as the High Court may issue, Courts may adopt such technological advances as may become available from time to time.
  5. The Rules as applicable to a Court shall mutatis mutandis apply to a Commissioner appointed by the Court to record evidence and to an inquiry officer conducting an inquiry.
  6. There shall be no unauthorised recording of the proceedings by any person or entity.
  7. The person defined in Rule 2(xii) shall provide identity proof as recognised by the Government of India/State Government/Union Territory to the Court point coordinator via personal email. In case of identity proof not being readily available the person concerned shall furnish the following personal details: name, parentage and permanent address, as also, temporary address if any.


Examination of persons
The rules provide that where the persons, who are being examined, or the accused to be tried, is in custody, the statement, or, as the case may be, the testimony, may be recorded through video conferencing and the Court shall provide adequate opportunity to the under-trial prisoner to consult in privacy with their counsel before, during and after the video conferencing.

The Court would be at liberty to record the demeanor of the person being examined.

An audio-visual recording of the examination of the person examined shall be preserved. An encrypted master copy with hash value shall be retained as a part of the record.

Judicial remand, framing of charge, examination of accused and Proceedings under Section 164 of the CrPC

As per the rules, the Court may, at its discretion, authorize the detention of an accused, frame charges in a criminal trial under the CrPC by video conferencing. However, the rules further provide that ordinarily judicial remand in the first instance or police remand shall not be granted through video conferencing save and except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.

The Court may, the rules provide, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded in writing, examine a witness or an accused under Section 164 of the CrPC or record the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC through video conferencing while observing all due precautions to ensure that the witness or the accused as the case may be is free of any form of coercion, threat or undue influence. The Court shall ensure compliance with Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

Allowing persons who are not parties to the case to view the proceedings

In order to observe the requirement of an open Court proceeding, the rules allow the members of the public to view Court hearings conducted through video conferencing, except proceedings ordered for reasons recorded in writing to be conducted in-camera.

The rules also stated that the Court shall endeavour to make available sufficient links (consistent with available bandwidth) for accessing the proceedings.

However, where, for any reason, a person unconnected with the case is present at the Remote Point, that person shall be identified by the Coordinator at the Remote Point at the start of the proceedings and the purpose of the presence of that person shall be conveyed to the Court. Such a person shall continue to remain present only if ordered so by the Court.

Requirements For Virtual Court Hearings As Mentioned In Schedule I

  1. All participants shall wear sober attire consistent with the dignity of the proceedings. Advocates shall be appropriately dressed in professional attire prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961.
  2. Police officials shall appear in the uniform prescribed for police officials under the relevant statute or orders. The attire for judicial officers and court staff will be as specified in the relevant rules prescribed in that behalf by the High Court. The decision of the Presiding Judge or officer as to the dress code will be final.
  3. Proceedings shall be conducted at the appointed date and time. Punctuality shall be scrupulously observed.
  4. The case will be called out and appearances shall be recorded on the direction of the Court.
  5. Every participant shall adhere to the courtesies and protocol that are followed in a physical Court. Judges will be addressed as Madam/Sir or Your Honour. Officers will be addressed by their designation such as Bench Officer/Court Master. Advocates will be addressed as Learned Counsel/Senior Counsel.
  6. Advocates, Required Persons, parties in person and other participants shall keep their microphones muted till they are called upon to make submissions.
  7. Remote Users shall ensure that their devices are free from malware.
  8. Remote Users and the Coordinator at the Remote Point shall ensure that the Remote Point is situated in a quiet location, is properly secured and has sufficient internet coverage. Any unwarranted disturbance caused during video conferencing may if the Presiding Judge so directs render the proceedings non-est.
  9. All participants cell phones shall remain switched off or in aeroplane mode during the proceedings.
  10. All participants should endeavour to look into the camera, remain attentive and not engage in any other activity during the course of the proceedings.



It is time now to dwell upon the general procedure as enunciated in Chapter IV. This will help a lot in understanding how the procedure is conducted in video conference proceedings.

It runs as follows:
12. General Procedure

12.1 The procedure set out hereafter in this chapter is without prejudice to the procedure indicated elsewhere in these Rules qua specific instances in which proceedings are conducted via video conferencing.

12.2 The Coordinator at the Court Point shall ensure that video conferencing is conducted only through a Designated Video Conferencing Software. However, in the event of a technical glitch during a given proceeding, the concerned Court may for reasons to be recorded permit the use of software other than the Designated Video Conferencing Software for video conferencing in that particular proceeding.

12.3 The identity of the person to be examined shall be confirmed by the Court with the assistance of the Coordinator at the Remote Point as per Rule 8.1, at the time of recording of the evidence and the same must be reflected in the order sheet of the Court.

12.4 In civil cases, parties requesting for recording statements of the person to be examined by video conferencing shall confirm to the Court, the location of the person, the willingness of such person to be examined through video conferencing and the availability of technical facilities for video conferencing at the agreed-upon time and place.

12.5 In criminal cases, where the person to be examined is a prosecution witness or a Court witness or where a person to be examined is a defence witness, the counsel for the prosecution or defence counsel, as the case may be, shall confirm to the Court the location of the person, willingness to be examined by video conferencing and the time, place and technical facility for such video conferencing.

12.6 In case the person to be examined is an accused, the prosecution will confirm the location of the accused at the Remote Point.

12.7 Video conferencing shall ordinarily take place during the Court hours. However, the Court may pass suitable directions concerning the timing and schedule of video conferencing as the circumstances may warrant.

12.8 If the accused is in custody and not present at the Court Point, the Court will order a multi-point video conference between itself, the witness and the accused in custody to facilitate the recording of the statement of the witness (including medical or other experts). The Court shall ensure that the defence of the accused is not prejudiced in any manner and that the safeguards contained in Rule 8.3 are observed.

12.9 The Coordinator at the Remote Point shall be paid such amount as honorarium as may be directed by the Court in consultation with the parties.

Under Chapter V which deals with miscellaneous provisions, it must be mentioned in particular about the most relevant provision wherein has been very rightly provided that:
18 Power to Relax The High Court may if satisfied that the operation of any Rule is causing undue hardship, by order dispense with or relax the requirements of that Rule to such extent and subject to such conditions, as may be stipulated to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner.

In conclusion, we have discussed here only the most relevant provisions and rules. It is really good to note that Rajasthan too has joined the club of States which have notified rules for video conferencing for courts. All states must now act similarly! It brooks no more delay anymore now!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top