A welcome transparency

In a laudable step, the Supreme Court has favoured the installation of CCTV cameras in subordinate courts throughout the country to enable recording of the court proceedings. Earlier, in March this year, the apex court had directed all high courts to ensure video recordings in two districts of each state and in the Union Territories.

The immediate impetus for the court to allow audio-video recordings of court proceedings came from the use of CCTV cameras in public places to contain violence. In Deputy Inspector General of Police v S. Samuthiram, a case pertaining to eve-teasing and sexual harassment, the Supreme Court took cognisance of the rising number of such incidents and the need for prevention mechanisms.

It issued many directions, including installation of CCTV cameras in public places. In Dilip Kumar Basu v State of West Bengal, it directed state governments to install CCTV cameras in all jails in their respective states and consider their installation in police stations in a phased manner depending upon the incidents of violence reported in the jurisdictions of those police stations.

The latest move by the apex court will, doubtless, enhance the transparency of courts. Judges often reason that court proceedings are open to all and therefore the judiciary is the most transparent institution while other wings of the government are opaque, where decisions are taken secretly in closed chambers. The argument holds water, but the irony is that the required reforms have not taken place in judicial functioning to inspire confidence in the public despite the open court system. It is hoped that it will also help contain the problem of judicial delays to some extent.

It is well-known that the party in the wrong, whose case lacks merit, invariably wants to drag it on and seeks adjournments indefinitely. Many a time, when they find it difficult to obtain adjournment, their lawyers seek it on health grounds although they can be found present arguing other cases in other courts. In the Uphaar fire tragedy case, the counsel for the accused Ansal brothers, Ram Jethmalani, got adjournment in the Supreme Court on the ground of being indisposed, but he was arguing for the DMK’s Kanimozhi in the 2-G case at Patiala House Court in Delhi. This is quite common. Now, CCTV footage will easily establish such lies that lawyers use to mislead the court.

Although even without it, it can be proved from the records of the court, it will now be easier to do so. The video recordings will have all records of which witness and lawyer turned up, and who did not come, etc. More often than not, lawyers make some false pretext or the other to obtain adjournments and deny having said so on the next date.

For example, an advocate may submit that his client is willing to consider the claims of the opposite party and needs time for it, but on the next date of hearing, he would deny having said so earlier.

The CCTV cameras could also make judges more punctual. There are complaints against many judges who hardly observe the time schedule -- they come late, leave early or take long lunch breaks, on some days sitting hardly for three hours in the court.

It is also not unusual for lawyers to ask leading questions during the cross-examination of the accused or witness, which is not permissible under the law. Judges object to it, but many times they do not stop it. For example, the advocate would start by asking the witness, in which direction did the accused flee after shooting the victim. It means that the witness was present and saw everything, whereas the lawyer should have begun by asking whether the witness was present at the time of the incident. In rape cases, lawyers cross examine the victim in such a way that she feels like she’s being assaulted again.

The inexorable march of science and technology does not leave any field untouched. Obviously, the judiciary cannot remain immune to its impact. Now, video-conferencing is making the practice of physically producing the accused in the court redundant. Their statements are being recorded from the jail itself.

This practice was started for the first time in 1998 in the criminal court in Bengaluru and it is expanding at a fast pace. In criminal cases, many a time, adjournments are granted because the accused is not produced in the court due to various reasons — inadequacy of the police force and vehicles, threat to the life of the accused, or other commitments of the administration.

Ensuring safety

Sometimes, the accused are shot dead in the court campus or on way to the court campus by their rivals, or the police team carrying them is attacked to free the accused. Thus, video conferencing not only ensures the production of the accused in time but saves the revenue of the state besides ensuring the safety of everyone concerned. In some cases, an accused may be wanted in different cases in different districts or states. Now, they can be produced in different courts from the jail itself without transporting them to those places.

The installation of CCTV cameras in the lower courts is a beginning and, hopefully, high courts and the Supreme Court would also have CCTV cameras soon. In the UK, justice minister Shailesh Vara announced in March last that cameras would be allowed inside the court but only the sentencing remark made by senior judges would be filmed in a pilot scheme. He said, “My hope is that this will lead to more openness and transparency as to what happens in our courts. Broadcasting sentencing remarks would allow the public to see and hear the judge’s decision in their own words.”

However, in the USA, federal judges are reluctant to allow cameras inside courtrooms and feel that it would affect participants’ behaviour: witnesses would become camera-shy and reluctant to testify, jurors would get distracted by the devices and both would worry about their own safety as everything would be recorded. These are initial hiccups. The installation of cameras in courts cannot be stopped for long.

(The writer is a senior TV journalist, columnist and author)