dna edit: Courting the digital divide

Law minister Kapil Sibal’s consultations with the judiciary to start audio-recording of court proceedings is a welcome step. However, the minister seems ill-informed about the tentative progress made in this direction. Nine e-courts have been functioning in Delhi for over a year now: seven at the Delhi high court and two at the district-court level. The proceedings in some of these courts are being video-recorded too. So, the minister’s push for merely audio-recording the proceedings is a half-hearted measure. But Sibal was spot-on when he said recording of proceedings will improve transparency and expedite appeals.

From identifying prosecutors, pleaders and defence counsel who short-change their parties or indiscriminately seek adjournments, higher court judges faced with tricky and high-profile appeal cases, witnesses like government doctors and forensic experts who can avail of video-conferencing to depose instead of physically appearing in court and to finally going paperless — the versatility of e-courts and audio-video recording will revolutionise the functioning of courts. But it is one thing to suggest far-reaching reforms and another to implement them.

A telling tale of the government’s failures is the inexplicable delay in computerisation of trial courts. In Delhi — one of the few states to achieve 100 per cent computerisation — litigants, lawyers and the media can view judgments, daily orders and cause lists online.

One needs to point out here that successive governments have under-funded the judiciary in budget after budget. Responding to the massive public outcry after the December 16 Delhi gang-rape, the government made the right noises about creating more courts and reducing the huge pendency of cases.

But the Budget session held barely two months after protests died down is proof of the government’s doublespeak on improving judicial infrastructure. Against an allocation of Rs510 crore for which the actual outgo was Rs601 crore in 2012-13, the finance minister offered Rs756 crore for 2013-14. Whether Sibal intends to set up more courts and complete the computerisation of courts or pitch for installing audio recording with this paltry increase in budgetary allocation is unclear.

If the government’s reforms seem hypocritical, the Supreme Court’s attitude to audio-visual recording is unknown. Lawyer Prashant Bhushan has been arguing a writ petition in the SC for these reforms since 2008. Back in 2009, parliament had amended the Criminal Procedure Code and advocated audio-visual recording of statements of rape victims, witnesses and accused persons at police stations and before magistrates to ensure fair trial. But this went largely unheeded.

The Nithari killer Surinder Koli was nailed by his confession on camera before a magistrate though he retracted it later. Taking courts into the digital age requires liberal funding. Perhaps, Sibal will consider former CJI SH Kapadia’s idea of a separate national budget for the judiciary.