Video Conferencing Rules Must Be Meaningfully Applied: P&H High Court Allows Examination Of Witness On VC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a trial court order refusing to permit the examination of a material witness through video conferencing, emphasizing that procedural rules must be applied in a manner that advances access to justice rather than defeats it.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "It is pertinent to note that the requisite technological infrastructure for conducting proceedings through video conferencing has been made available to all Courts with the object of facilitating access to justice and ensuring expeditious adjudication of cases. In furtherance of the said objective, this Court, in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has framed the Video Conferencing Rules governing the conduct of judicial proceedings through electronic means."

The Court was hearing a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Chandigarh, which had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to record the testimony of an attesting witness to a Will through video conferencing.

The petitioner contended that the witness, an elderly woman aged about 78 years, was unable to travel due to compelling personal circumstances, including attending to her ailing husband who was suffering from serious medical conditions. Despite these submissions, the trial court rejected the application, observing that mere age without illness was insufficient to exempt physical appearance and that costs could compensate travel inconvenience.

Examining the matter, the Court noted that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the High Court, which expressly permit the use of such technology at all stages of judicial proceedings, including the recording of witness testimony.

The Court referred to Rule 8, which lays down a comprehensive procedure for recording evidence through video conferencing, including identity verification, document transmission, recording of demeanour, and preservation of audio-visual records.

Rejecting the reasoning of the trial court, "the request seeking examination of the witness through video conferencing cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. The witness in question is of advanced age and, as brought to the notice of the Court, has recently suffered the loss of her husband after attending to his prolonged medical condition. Such circumstances constitute valid and compelling grounds warranting invocation of the procedural mechanism of recording evidence through virtual mode."

Addressing concerns regarding identification of documents and signatures, the Court clarified that no procedural difficulty would arise, as documents could be transmitted in advance and put to the witness during virtual examination in accordance with the Rules.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to proceed with recording the testimony of the witness through video conferencing in compliance with the applicable Rules.

Mr. Jatin Bansal, Advocate with Ms. Keerti Sandhu,Advocate and Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: ASHWANI KUMAR SHARMA v. RAMA RANI SHARMA AND OTHERS

Click here to read order