Recently,
the Law Minister of India, Mr. Kapil Sibal has brought about
sparkling news in the media for the more extensive use of technology
in the Indian Courts for imparting justice. This news has come within
4 weeks of his appointment as the Law Minister of India. He has
conveyed to the media, changes which are proposed by him, for which,
he would take the advice of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief
Justices of all the 24 High Courts.
The
changes which he wants to bring about for the better delivery of
justice are:
- Audio recording of the trial court.
- Extensive use of technology for issuing summons and other necessary notices.
- Possibility of discussions in the Union Cabinet to change the 20 year old collegium system of appointment of judges.
Apart
from the above three mentioned possible
reforms,
Mr. Kapil Sibal who is even holding the charge of the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, is checking the
possibility and is working out the plan for a video-conferencing
system to stay in touch with the law officers posted at the Supreme
Court of India and at the 24 High Courts in India. He plans to have
this system so that these law officers discuss the important issues
with him, sitting in their own respective offices. This will reduce
the travelling time, where the officers can communicate with the
minister sitting in their own offices, instead of going all the way
to New Delhi to meet the minister and will hence increase the
efficiency of the department. This system is presently being enjoyed
by the top bureaucrats of India.
The
most awaited of all the above reforms, which will increase the
efficiency of the courts in imparting justice, is the proposal for
audio recording of the proceedings of the trial courts.
Before
discussing the possibility, benefits and/or any defects in this
proposal lets have it right from the mouth of Mr. Kapil Sibal.
“Why
shouldn't there be audio recording of court proceedings? After all,
the court is a public place. There may be some objection against
video recording of court proceedings. But there can't be any
objection to audio recording`.”
