Supreme Court allows cameras into courtrooms

2013: The Union law ministry thrice writes to SC to allow CCTV cameras in courtrooms.

 Supreme Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, August 22: The order of the Supreme Court allowing cameras into courtrooms will greatly improve current court practices, jurists feel.
The introduction of audio and video recordings of proceedings in subordinate courts will open to public scrutiny the performance of presiding officers.
Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada, former judge of the AP High Court, said that the decision of the apex court will contribute to transparency of court processes and better case management.
He feels that recordings of proceedings will speed up the trial process as trial judges will be able to replay the recorded proceedings from day one of the trial should they wish to do so.
He said the justice system should make use of modern technology and the necessary amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, should be made.
Justice P. Lakshman Reddy, former judge of the AP High Court, said video recordings of court proceedings will have an effect on the conduct of everyone present in the courtroom, be it advocates, judges, litigants, witnesses etc, as everything they say or do will be captured on camera, he said. Judges, too, will follow the code of conduct for fear of losing dignity and respect if their behaviour falls short.
He said that there is no way currently to check whether presiding officers function throughout the prescribed working hours or not. The performance of trial judges has hitherto been assessed on the basis of the disposal rate of cases, but with the introduction of video recordings, the High Court can check whether they are holding the proceedings throughout the prescribed hours or not.
Maintaining that since court proceedings are open to all, there should be no question of privacy, the former judge said, “I hope that the Supreme Court will consider allowing the general public to access the video footage in the near future, though as of now it has barred access of video footage to lawyers, litigants and the general public through the Right to Information Act. “

Time frame must for speedy trial of cases

Unlike US, India does not have statutory time limits.

 Hyderabad High Court

 

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, August 7: Jurists felt that rational and non-mandatory time frames for different type of cases are the only solution for dispensation of speedy justice to the people which is mandated in the Constitution.
Legal experts said that India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US Speedy Trial Act. The Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code have time frames for completing certain stages of the case. These statutes, however, generally do not prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed or each step in the trial should be concluded.
According to lawyers in city, the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to the trial and to limit the possibilities that long delays will impair the ability of an accused to defend him.
Mr N. Ramachandra Rao, senior advocate and a member of the Bar Council, said that in view of the mounting arrears in trial courts there is a dire need of an effective and foolproof system for time-bound trials so that the victims can get speedy and qualitative justice.
Maintaining that justice hurried shouldn’t be justice buried, he said that it is an admitted fact that right now the Indian judiciary has been facing shortage of judges, staff and infrastructure. Without fulfilling these shortages, introduction of time frame for disposal of cases would lead to miscarriage of justice.
As of now, there are certain statues like Domestic Violence Act and Negotiable Instruments Act which facilitate time-bound trials. But in these cases also trial courts have been facing difficulty due to shortage of manpower, he noted.
Mr Ramachandra Rao pointed out that the Law Commission of India also had suggested a time frame for disposal of cases since from the stage of filing the case to the completion of trial, granting bails, examination of witnesses and cross examinations.
He said that fixing the time frame without providing the institutional support of having number of judges in accordance with the population ratio and sufficient supporting manpower would not yield desired results.
Mr Rao, who is also a BJP MLC, said that the Centre was focussing on constitution of tribunals to deal with certain cases to lessen the burden on higher courts.
It has been contemplating to increase number of judges in trial courts across the country which will pave way for fixation of time frame for disposal of cases.
Mr P. Subhash, an advocate practising in the Hyderabad High Court, said that countries like the US have limited mandatory time frames. However, India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US.
He said case specific time-tables are used as standards, delay reduction methods and yardsticks for measuring delays in the system in various jurisdictions around the world, including the US, Canada and the UK.
SC favours time frame as guidelines
The Supreme Court, which is not in favour of mandatory time limits for disposal of cases at the initial stage, favours time frames as guidelines for courts.
A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the court. Though the court was not in favour of mandatory time limits, it did not find problematic the use of time frames as guidelines.
A two-member bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit in a recent case observed that “speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. This Constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources.”
The bench has asked the High Courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to decide bail applications within a week and in cases where the accused is in custody, magisterial trial should be concluded within six months and sessions trial and sessions courts have to complete trials within two years. The bench said that cases, which are more than five years old, by the end of the year.

Telangana: Conciliation can reduce court backlog, say lawyers

Law Commission says problem more human in India.

 According to the Law Commission of India, judicial reforms are essential for the overall development of the country.

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad,August5: Many lawyers in the state are of the opinion that introduction of conciliation in legal disputes at pre-litigation stage is the only solution to relive Indian courts of the burden of backlog.
According to lawyers, conciliation is not available in civil and criminal cases currently. In its report in 2009, the Law Commission of India had noted, “In India, the problem is more human than economic. Ninety percent of the litigations are filed by people from rural areas.  People are even fighting for half an acre of land. Therefore, there has to be an overall solution.”
Conciliation is introduced through the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Courts in India have recognised the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the fields of arbitration and family law.
Mr M.V. Rajaram, a High Court advocate who is creating awareness about ADR  in the twin cities and Ranga Reddy district, said that resolving civil disputes at the pre-litigation stage would be a great relief to both the parties and it will be possible when both parties agree for a conciliation.
He also said that there was no scope for conciliation in civil courts currently. If the judiciary introduces the system at the pre-litigation stage many cases can be resolved through mediation between both the parties in the presence of a judicial officer.
Mr C. Mallesh Rao, a senior advocate in the city, said that introduction of admission court in the civil side at lower level would pave way for the settlement of civil disputes and petty criminal cases though conciliation. Currently, the admission courts are available in the High Courts in the country.
This facility should be extended to the lower judiciary wherein a judicial officer can initiate counselling of both the parties. If both the parties agree for conciliation, then the judicial officer can pass the order for a settlement which will be binding on both the parties.
Alternate Dispute Resolution needed
The Indian judiciary has already recognised the advantages of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) as it is less expensive, less time-consuming and free  from technicalities.
Considering the advantages of the ADR as it facilitates both the parties for a free discussion on their differences without any fear, the judiciary has allowed introduction of pre-counselling in family matters and consumer disputes. In view of the advantages of counselling at the pre-litigation stage, lawyers are advocating for the introduction of conciliation in civil disputes and petty criminal cases.
The judiciary has introduced permanent Lok Adalats for disposal of legal disputes at the pre-litigation stage to  provide  justice   to   citizens. The Lok Adalats are only dealing with matters pertaining to motor accident claims, matrimonial disputes and compensation for land acquisition.
According to lawyers, the Lok Adalats also deal with the pending cases. The Lok Adalats are also unable to initiate consultations between both the parties at the pre-litigation stage as they are burdened with long-pending cases referred to them.
They noted that National Lok Adalat, which was held on July 8 in the city, dealt with hundreds of cases pending since 1994. Majority of cases are related to motor accident claims.
Mr D.S.N.V Prasad Babu, a advocate in the High Court, said that introduction of conciliation at lower courts in civil matters is need of the hour in view of the increasing backlog of cases in lower courts across the country.
He also said the Law Commission of India and the Supreme Court are also advocating for alternative dispute resolution for reducing the burden of the judiciary. The help of senior lawyers can be sought in this regard, he noted.

Abortion debate: Supreme Court verdict ‘robbed’ girl of her childhood

The draft Bill allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in case the foetus suffers from substantial abnormalities.

 Representational Image

 By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, August 2: The Supreme Court judgement that refused a medical termination of pregnancy of a 10-year-old rape victim has rekindled the debate about the adequacy of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
The SC refused abortion of a 28-week foetus on medical grounds that it would endanger the lives of both mother and child. The MTP Act legalises abortion only under 20 weeks, an exception being Section 5 of the Act, which allows abortion after 20 weeks in case it is “immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.”
An amended Bill of the 1971 law, which extends the bar from 20 to 24 weeks, has been in cold storage for the past three years. This draft Bill allows women whose pregnancies are within 24 weeks, reproductive rights in consultation with their medical practitioners.
The draft Bill also allows abortion beyond 24 weeks in case the foetus suffers from substantial abnormalities.
The demand for amending the MTP Act has been increasing from cross- section of people in view of the rising incidence of sex crimes and the urgent need to empower women with sexual rights and choices both for their own interest and for the sake of reducing fertility rate as a whole.
Rachna Waddepalli, an advocate in the Hyderabad High Court, said that in the case of the 10-year-old girl “the rights of an unborn child who cannot advocate for itself, versus the rights of its mother who is herself a child, one has to strike a balance. Right to “life” of the foetus should not include just a right to “birth,” but “life.”
The advocate opined that “in the present case, deciding on a late term abortion was not by choice. Medicine has advanced enough to let doctors help the little girl in good faith and take care of her health. And if it’s too risky, it’s a risk worth taking under the circumstances as decided by her parents for her.”
She pointed out, “When one can terminate a child at 20 weeks, which is viable in India, 24 weeks is the viability in the UK, would the courts also charge the killing of a pregnant woman with a double murder? Why would the value of the life of a foetus as a person be lessened then? Are the moot questions with no answers?”
She said that the Supreme Court denying permission to a 10-year-old rape victim to abort her 28 week pregnancy on medical grounds that it would endanger both their lives brought to the fore the debate of Law versus Morality.
The Supreme Court has held that “life” has to be meaningful, complete and worth living. Abortion is allowed in case it’s inevitably necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
She explained that the strict reading of the provision of the law and asking a woman to carry the baby to full term, deliver it and bring it up is going to put her through mental and physical agony.
Ms Wadepalli said, “The victim’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was already affected by the repeated rape by her uncle. The opportunity granted by law to develop in a healthy manner with educational facilities has been robbed; her personal dignity and intimate choice are put at risk. It’s not about women’s rights and their respective choices. It’s a child’s right to a pain-free life and about giving back her childhood.”
The grounds for allowing abortion in this case at an advanced stage of pregnancy, which is an exceptional circumstance, ought to have been that the petitioner is a young rape victim and an unwilling mother-to-be as there have been instances where the courts have allowed termination beyond 20 weeks, she added.
K Aruna, another advocate of the High Court, said that in several cases the Supreme Court has allowed an abortion beyond the permissible limit of 20 weeks pregnancy by treating it as a special case.
She said that in January this year the Supreme Court allowed a 22-year-old woman from Thane to undergo abortion in the 24th week of her pregnancy as the baby suffered from anencephaly, a life threatening condition.
She felt that the pendency of the amendment to the legislation has forcing women to bear unwanted babies.

• 2016 July: The SC allowed a woman to abort in her 24 week of pregnancy, granting her the benefit under Section 5 of the MTP Act, 1971, that allows abortion despite the 20-week ceiling.
• 2008: The Bombay High Court in the case of Haresh and Niketa Mehta observed that only the Legislature could address the demand for change in the legal limit, and that meant that India started the process of re-evaluating provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
• 2015: the SC permitted a 14-year-old rape victim from Gujarat to abort after 20 weeks by treating it as a “special case.”

Judgement delay costly for victims 
Doctors claim that the stigma surrounding abortion in our country often leads to pregnant women resorting to quacks and home methods of abortion which is harmful to the mother's health.
Gynaecologist Dr Rooma Sinha says, “Often pregnant women are denied abortion due to religious customs that dictate against abortion. Abortion towards the last trimester is just like prolonged labour so it should be advised to have the procedure done as early as possible.” In cases of young mothers, an abortion harms their health.
Dr Sasikala Kola says that information such as whether the mother is anaemic, underweight, and her age, should be taken into consideration when taking a call on abortion.
“Many families are afraid of the backlash, and in the case of rape victims, they don’t speak out for fear of threats from the perpetrators. This leads to the delay in getting an abortion and our law does not then allow it.”
She says families should be aware of their girl children and keep a watch on them. Letting a pregnancy go beyond the stipulated ‘safe period’ could lead to complications if the abortion is not performed by recognised doctors.
Dr Vimee Bhindra says going to court cost the rape victim four weeks, which is huge in terms of pregnancy. The judgement process in such cases should be faster, say, three to four days. Gynaecologists see septic abortions and non- institutional deliveries on a daily basis.
“We see a lot of cases where the family tries to hush up an unwanted pregnancy by going to quacks. Some use washing sticks to clear their uterus, leading to bowel perpetuation. There is no regulatory body to keep a check on who is performing abortions,” says Dr Sasikala.