In a recent landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court, the case of Vinod Kumar saw significant developments in virtual court procedures. The court’s decision emphasized the advancement of technology and the flexibility provided to courts in deviating from traditional rules. Stay informed about the changing landscape of legal proceedings by following this case closely.
Arguments
- The petitioner, a permanent resident of Dubai, seeks permission for cross-examination through virtual mode.
- Cites examples of similar prayers granted by the court in other cases.
- Refers to the establishment of Digital NI Act Courts and guidelines for conducting proceedings virtually.
- Highlights the lack of difficulty faced by the respondent in cross-examining the petitioner through video conferencing.
- Emphasizes on the advancement of technology and the flexibility provided to courts to deviate from traditional rules.
- Argues that the petitioner should not be required to physically attend the court in India when virtual cross-examination is feasible.
- Mentions withdrawal of consent by the respondent for virtual cross-examination in some complaint cases.
- Invokes judgments from previous cases to support the petitioner’s plea for virtual participation.
- Contrasts the petitioner’s request with the general rule in Cr.P.C. that complainants must appear in person, as argued by the respondent.
- Counters the respondent’s claim of mala fide intent behind the complaint cases by stating the petitioner’s rationale for seeking virtual participation.
- Petitioner will not suffer inconvenience with the proposed manner of handling the case.
- Complainant is accused of conducting a luxurious litigation given the lack of appearances before the Trial Court since 2018.
- Cross-examination of the petitioner will be limited to 2/3 appearances and can be scheduled at the petitioner’s convenience.
- Respondent argues that confronting the petitioner with a large number of documents is not effectively possible through video conferencing.
Analysis
- The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift towards digitalization in court hearings.
- The Court has established Digital NI Act Courts for cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.
- Recommendations have been made to consider conducting certain cases entirely online without physical presence.
- The presence of the petitioner in this case seems to be sought merely for ego satisfaction, which is not permissible.
- The facility of virtual court proceedings should be used to its maximum potential.
- The consent previously given by the respondent for virtual proceedings should not be withdrawn arbitrarily.
- Virtual presence of the complainant/petitioner is deemed sufficient for compliance with Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
- Detailed procedures for recording evidence through video conferencing have been laid down in guidelines and rules by the Court.
- The learned Trial Court did not err in issuing summonses through virtual means and providing directions for virtual depositions.
- The hybrid mode of hearing in courts has been implemented, with a preference for summary procedures unless deemed necessary under specific provisions.
- Technologies for virtual court proceedings are already in use in the Court and District Courts.
- Modern technology is recommended not only for paperless operations but also to reduce overcrowding in courts.
- In the case of PRE_RELIED, the Court referred to previous judgments and rules related to video conferencing in cases involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 138 of the NI Act, which are primarily civil in nature.
- The Court highlighted Rule 18 of the ‘High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021’, which allows for relaxation or dispensation of specific rules if strict application may cause undue hardship, injustice, or burden on the parties.
- The intent behind Rule 18 is to provide flexibility to prevent adverse consequences of strict rule application.
- The Court exercised its power under Rule 18 by not allowing withdrawal of consent for virtual recording of evidence in the case, citing the need to maintain equity and fairness in dealing with the matter.
- Rule 5.3.11 of the Video Conferencing Rules by the High Court of Delhi requires consent of the accused for witness examination via video conference, but Rule 18 grants the Court the authority to relax such requirements for just and equitable resolution.
- In the case of Vinod Kumar, the Court reiterated the power conferred by Rule 18 of Video Conferencing Rules by the High Court of Delhi to relax operational rules for equitable case management.
- The procedure for recording evidence virtually must be followed in the present case.
- Consent given by the respondent initially for virtual evidence recording should not be allowed to be withdrawn.
- The Trial Court made an error in allowing the respondent to withdraw consent for virtual evidence recording.
Decision
- The petitions have been disposed of as stated.
- The decision has set aside the previous ruling.
- Pending applications have also been resolved.
- Further examination of the petitioner/complainant will be conducted via video conferencing following court guidelines.
- The Trial Court may require physical presence of the petitioner/complainant during cross-examination if deemed necessary for cogent reasons.
Case Title: AMIT CHOUDHRY Vs. KAVANDEEP SINGH SAMPURAN (2024:DHC:3690)
Case Number: CRL.M.C.-2353/2022
