Judiciary changes old order, hears cases through video-conferencing

The justice delivery mechanism has emerged as an effective system that has the capacity and capability to work even during the lockdown. The judiciary only recently took an unprecedented decision to hear cases through video-conferencing amid the lockdown.

As a part of the process, the Judges were in their camp offices while the lawyers appeared before them on a digital platform from different places. When the audio was disrupted towards the end of the proceedings in one such matter, the Judges wasted no time to switch over to WhatsApp video calling for saving time.

It also took upon itself the task of ensuring effective implementation of government schemes to prevent further deprivation of the deprived during the Covid lockdown. For the purpose, Haryana State Legal Services Authority’s executive chairman and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana

High Court, Justice Rajiv Sharma, issued six commandments.

These included directions to the district legal services authority to coordinate with the authorities concerned in different departments such as labour, industries and education. Coordination was also ordered between the legal services authority and schools, hospitals, deputy commissioners, banks and insurance companies for taking effective steps in identifying persons covered under different schemes for providing them with financial assistance as per their entitlement.

The actions can safely be construed as apposite exhibition of the judiciary’s competence to be proactive, flexible, proficient, and adaptive to the changing needs for delivering justice even during antagonistic conditions.

The purpose of a system, any system, is to ensure optimum utilisation of its resources to come out with a finer quality of product it is designed to produce. But a system is as good as the hands that manage it. Even the finest of the systems, meticulously crafted to fabricate the best of the products, can fail to come out with the desired results if not operated well. The justice delivery apparatus is no exception.

A case well handled can make difference between justice and judgment; and its dextrous operation in a manner that cuts delay can make an order all the more meaningful. But nothing can be more satisfying for the judiciary than its ability to unchain the needy tied to the shackles of penury and destitution, and to perform its functions with efficacy in testing times with meagre resources — manpower included.

The function of the legal services authority has almost always been narrowly perceived to provide legal aid to the people and conduct lok adalats. The judiciary’s decision to ensure that the advantages of the government schemes are effectively passed on to the disadvantaged, after travelling beyond the superficial notions shrouding its objectives, is extraordinary. Also, outstanding is its act of bringing justice to doorstep through video-conferencing.

The concept of virtual hearing is neither unknown, nor uncommon. During the days of regular functioning, it helps in making the system all the more efficient and less time-consuming by permitting the parties, their lawyers and even witnesses to put in e-appearance before the Benches without compelling them to travel long distances.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has already ensured recording of evidence through video-conferencing in cases where the estranged couple live separately in places falling under the jurisdiction of different courts.

The initiative has its genesis in directions issued by the Supreme Court. “We understand that in every district in the country video-conferencing is now available. In any case, wherever such facility is available, it ought to be fully utilised…,” the Apex Court had asserted.

The courts have since then examined accused in criminal trials through video-conferencing facility. Doctors, too, have been examined by the courts as witnesses. But the concept failed to translate itself into a regular feature in courts’ day-to-day functioning.

The High Court, about five years ago, booted the programme of digital courts, but with hiccups. To begin with, only urgent or new matters were taken up in the electronic format on the digital screens placed before the Benches in the paperless courts.

The Judges, heading the digital courts, went through the petitions, applications and even annexure on the digital screen before adjudicating the matters. The process remained slow due to time taken in downloading the files, indicating the need for speeding up the system. No one can really recall when the courts logged themselves out of the digital courts system.

In this milieu, the massive reliance placed by judiciary on technology during the Covid lockdown appears to be remarkable. Its use by the court to prevent delay and denial of justice, as such, is commendable, having the competence of setting a trend.

It means justice is blind for being unbiased and fair, yet judiciary keeps its eyes open to imbibe new features in its public service module. The critics should at least now give judiciary its due because its effort to function in adverse conditions is certainly beyond the shadow of doubt.

BENCH MARK
Law, and the order
Model code of conduct can’t be used to avoid orders
by Saurabh Malik

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that model code of conduct cannot be used to avoid orders at a later stage. It has ruled that imposition of model code is a temporary phase and the state is required to pass an order after its conclusion.
• The High Court ruling came in a case where the services of nine employees appointed on contract basis was regularised. But the petitioner-employees were virtually thrown out of the race as the model code of conduct came into force at a time when their claim was being considered. “That phase was temporary. Model code of conduct having come to an end, the respondents were required to pass an order for regularisation of services of the petitioners as passed in the case of similarly placed employees, who were selected along with the petitioners in pursuance to the same advertisement,” the Bench asserted.