Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has allowed examination on Skype for recording evidence in a divorce petition. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao granted this order in a civil revision petition by a woman seeking to review the legality and correctness of an order passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, Khammam, allowing examination of her husband on Skype in a divorce petition.
While upholding the order of the lower court, the judge observed that “there is a need to avail of technological innovations with necessary safeguards and precautions in the justice delivery system for speedy and effective disposal of cases”.
The petitioner contended that the trial court committed an error in allowing the plea of her husband, permitting his examination including marking of documents, on Skype on the ground that he was unable to attend court due to his urgent work in the US.
Counsel for the husband contended that none of the provisions of law, much less Sections 65A and B of the Indian Evidence Act prohibited such e-recording of evidence and that the law was fairly settled for availing technological advancements.
Attendance need not be physical: HC
Delivering the order Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao held that examination of witnesses contemplated by Order XVIII Rule 4 CrPC and the words “witness in attendance” must be understood as person being present and it need not be physical presence.
Recording of evidence through audio, video link or through Skype is permissible.
The judge pointed out that recording of evidence via video conferencing could be ordered in cases where attendance of the witness could not be ensured without delay and inconvenience. He reminded that in the US video recording is common in most courts.
The judge relied on a recent judgement by the Delhi HC in International Planned Parenthood Federation vs Madhu Bala Nath in which it was observed that courts must be pragmatic in allowing witnesses to depose via video conferencing.
The judge observed, “There is only a thin line between access to justice and effective access to justice. No one can dispute the fact that information technology has paved a new line of thinking in modernising the Indian judicial system for effective access to justice.”
He said, “The task is early disposal without sacrificing the quality of decision-making and for that the courts can use technological innovations. Our objective should be accessible and affordable justice for all.”
The Judge ordered that the e-audio and visual should be recorded at both ends through the Skype facility available at the Khammam Collectorate and at New Jersey at a venue to be fixed by an officer nominated by the Indian envoy in the US.
NTRUOH told to review valuation
The Hyderabad HC has found loopholes in the digital online evaluation system introduced by the NTR University of Health Sciences to evaluate the answer sheets of PG medical students. The court ordered the university to re-look and change the manner of evaluation.
Justice S.V. Bhatt, while disposing writ petitions by Dr P. Kishore Kumar and others, ordered the varsity to take a holistic view on the evaluation of answer sheets within three weeks from the date of receipt of his order and thereafter declare the results.
The petitioners urged the court to declare the varsity move to digitally evaluate answer sheets as bad in law. The judge observed that the expertise of the examiners has to be re-examined by the university.
Grievances not atrocity: HC
The HC has ruled that the grievances of a government servant against his superiors cannot be considered an ‘atrocity’ as per the definition of the term in Sec. 2(1) (a) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was dismissing a petition by Vijay Singh, an employee of National Seeds Corporation Limited seeking speedy disposal of a case pending in Malkajgiri police station of the city, referred by a lower court based on his private complaint against his superior under the 1989 Act and also not to transfer the case to the Telibanda police station in Chhattisgarh.
The petitioner who belongs to an SC contended that during his seven years of service, he had been transferred five times without any reason, and that this amounts to harassment and that his superiors officers were obstructing his promotional avenues.
He told the court that when he approached the HC in 2013 challenging the action of the authorities withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the High Court had granted stay. He alleged that his superiors made adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) in 2011-12.
The judge observed, “This is not to say that the grievance of the petitioner regarding his transfers, imposition of penalty or ACRs is not a grievance. The remedy is a review under Article 226 of the Constitution in the HC and not filing a complaint under the Act.” The judge dismissed the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to air his grievances through a judicial review.
