Read Time: 07 minutes
Court said that "video conferencing infrastructure has been established by public money and it has to be best utilized"
The Allahabad High Court recently expressed grave concern over allegations of non-compliance with the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020, particularly in Ghaziabad district.
The bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan was dealing with an application to quash an order of the district court in a dowry cruelty case. During the proceedings, it was brought to the court's attention that the Magistrate Court of District Ghaziabad lacked video conferencing facilities.
To this, the court asserted the necessity of verifying the statement. Consequently, it directed the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) of the High Court in Allahabad and the District Judge of Ghaziabad to submit a report in this respect by April 2, 2024.
Court ordered, "In the event, a video conferencing facility is not available in the court concerned where the present matter is going on, the District Judge, Ghaziabad shall submit his report as to why the video conferencing facility has not been initiated in the court concerned.
The single judge bench emphasized that despite the establishment of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 in the year 2020 and the ample time provided for infrastructure development, cases continue to be presented before it without utilizing this facility.
"The courts cannot be permitted to sleep over the matter in respect of the video conferencing facility", said the court while directing that the report shall be submitted positively by the Central Project Co-ordinator (CPC), High Court, Allahabad, and the District Judge, Ghaziabad in this respect.
Further, court ordered that the District Judge, Ghaziabad shall also intimate to the high court as to how many courts are enabled for video conferencing and how many courts are recording evidence through video conferencing in last two months.
"In the event, courts are not recording evidence where the prosecution witnesses are outside the district, the District Judge, Ghaziabad shall also explain as to why the officers of judiciary of District Ghaziabad are not taking interest in implementation of Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 and why action be not initiated for not following the direction of law", court warned.
Apart from that, while pointing out that it had come to the knowledge of the court that video conferencing facilities are not being extended to the prosecution witnesses, who are outside the district where the case is going on, the court ordered the government advocate to obtain instruction from the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh in this regard.
Moreover, court directed the Principal Secretary (Law), Uttar Pradesh to also explain as to what steps have been taken by the Government in this respect. "...so that movement of prosecution witnesses from one district to another, who are generally government officials is saved and valuable time of government officers are not spend in travelling to other district for appearance before the court," the court said.
Court asserted that "video conferencing infrastructure has been established by public money and it has to be best utilized".
The matter was taken up on April 2, however, the court was informed that an application was pending before the court concerned for recording the witnesses' evidence through video conferencing. Therefore, court posted the matter for further consideration on April 9, 2024.
Case Title: Smt Anju Madhusoodanan Pillai v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home At Lucknow And Another
Please Login or Register
