On camera: Video-recording court proceedings would lead to less crowding and could result in fewer casualties in case of terrorist attacks such as the one that happened in Delhi High Court earlier this month

Indur Chhugani, 63, is fighting for a judicial reform that can have a far-reaching impact on the way court proceedings are conducted in India.

Apart from petitioning the Bombay High Court, he has written to the Chief Justice of India, pleading with the apex court to direct the high court to allow him to video-record how his case is being handled in the court. “I am willing to bear the cost of recording the proceedings and providing all parties concerned with the transcripts,” says the Mumbai-based businessman-turned-social activist. Chhugani filed a petition in 2009, challenging Congress MP Priya Dutt’s (Sunil Dutt’s daughter) election and contending that his own nomination papers had been “improperly rejected” by returning officers.

So what prompted him to ask for video-recording court matters? “According to the law, election petitions are to be decided on within six months. But in my case, it dragged on for more than two years as some judges are resorting to dilatory tactics,” says Chhugani. “I suspect some of them are partisan and favour the opposite party. So recordings will show how the trial is really being conducted.” In other words, he believes that capturing what goes on in courts on video will ensure, as he puts it, “transparency, fair play and justice”.

Acting on his petition, a Bombay High Court judge recently directed the advocate general and the bar council of the court to look into the feasibility of video-recording court proceedings. Acknowledging the significance of such an initiative that concerns not only judges but also lawyers and litigants, the court said: “The Registry of this Court, particularly the Registrar (Legal) and the Deputy Registrar (IT) may initiate a process for evolving the modalities or rules for proper recording of proceedings in courts… and preserving them in a tamper-proof manner.”

The court stresses that it’s imperative that proceedings are recorded properly, ensuring that “everybody in the courtroom is within the sweep of the camera”.

The judge also referred to the recent Delhi High Court blast while making the observations. “A recent incident in the Delhi High Court may also make the judicial administration think about the possibility of video-recording court proceedings, since if court proceedings are recorded and telecast, the necessity of permitting members of the public to visit the court could be avoided,” he said. In that case, a large section of the public could watch court proceedings at home or in some waiting room so that “the security of the court is not breached”, the judge added.

Of course, Chhugani’s is not the first petition which has asked for video-recording for the sake of transparency in meting out justice. Advocate K.V. Dhananjay, who practises in the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court, has been fighting to get this measure introduced since 2008. In February this year, acting on a petition filed by Dhananjay on behalf of a Delhi trader, seeking video-recording of his case proceedings, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court observed that it’s time to let courts, particularly the lower ones, to audio/video record their daily transactions. Referring the matter to a larger bench, the judge said that such a step would not only discipline judges, but also lawyers and litigants who try to win cases by “show of force”.

“However, a month ago, the larger bench dismissed our petition. But we won’t give up — we have filed a review petition,” says Dhananjay.

While dismissing the petition, the Bench said, “There is… no specific legislation, provision or any law regulating the field referring to which it can be said that there is a mandate of law that the audio/video recording is to be done in respect of court proceedings.” It added that the high court should not “overstep the well-recognised bounds of its own jurisdiction” and that “framing of a rule is a matter of policy” and no mandamus (command) could be issued to the respondents for audio and video recording of court proceedings.

“The Delhi High Court can spend several crores on parking facilities, but it cannot wire up its court — that’s hard to believe,” says Dhananjay. “It takes approximately Rs 1 lakh to wire up each court and there are 38 courtrooms in the high court.”

The advocate contends that the high court might have its own reasons for not allowing video recordings, but it shouldn’t restrain petitioners from doing so. “If there’s no provision on video-recording, there is also no law barring them,” says Dhananjay. “What are judges afraid of? Why is this fear of transparency?”

Activists of Janhit Manch, a non government organisation that fights for judicial reforms, agree. They filed a PIL in 2008 and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan argued for video-recording court proceedings to ensure transparency and speedy dispensation of justice. “But the petition was dismissed. It seems judges do not want to show the world how wayward their behaviour in courts can be,” says Sandip R. Jalan, a Mumbai-based advocate and an activist with Janhit Manch. “Also, if video-recordings are allowed, one would know how much time is wasted on bogus arguments — lawyers in most cases argue beyond their pleadings.”

Several countries like the US, Thailand and Nigeria do allow video-recording of court proceedings. Nevertheless, a paper from the United States Institute of Peace notes that countries which do not allow recordings face several challenges in shifting from a hand-written recording system to an automated, verbatim one. These barriers include costs, resistance from judges, the lack of infrastructural facilities and fear of job loss owing to automation.

Experts say that there is indeed a technological and financial hurdle to allowing video-recording in India. “It does involve equipping the courts with the latest technology and that entails a huge cost,” says Pavan Duggal, a Delhi-based advocate who specialises in cyber law. “So technological feasibility is a matter to be considered. At the moment, the priority lies in disposing of a stupendous backlog of cases in Indian courts.” At last count, about 3 crore cases were pending in Indian courts.

But Duggal believes that video-recording is the future of judicial reforms. “We now have e-courts in India. In some cases, especially with regard to undertrials, video-conferencing has been legally sanctioned,” says Duggal. “Laws like the Information Technology Act of 2000 legalise electronic formats. We lawyers also file cases electronically in some instances. So it’s a matter of time before video-recording too is allowed.”

As for Chhugani, he will continue to press for his demand. “If Ajmal Kasab can have his proceedings recorded, why can’t a common man ask for the same privilege?”

It’s a question the judicial authorities might find hard to answer.