Category: Research

 

Abstract

The move towards digitization of the judiciary and the adoption of video-conferencing preceded the pandemic. However, the pandemic has necessitated their mainstream adoption. While Indian courts have been prompt in issuing their SOPs, these have been inadequate due to their non-implementation and the inability of traditional legal tools to address unprecedented procedural issues, emerging from the mainstreaming of video conferencing.

Firstly, there are due process concerns, centred around inadequate hosting platforms, sub-standard organizational practices, inefficient ancillary processes, and non-inclusive technical requirements. Secondly, there is a lack of accountability and transparency because of derogation from the rule of open court, without any effective alternative measures. Thirdly, there are privacy concerns as regards unauthorized participation, the secrecy of data exchanged, and commercial exploitation of data.

Adopting a design-based approach not only addresses areas conventional legal tools can’t, but also improves efficiency and automates compliance. To this end, several technological and organizational design changes are suggested that can be made to effectively address emerging procedural issues.

Keywords: online justice, virtual courts, pandemic, design-based approach, digitization, standard operating procedure.

 

Introduction

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated social distancing to be the norm. To this end, courts, across the world, have started resolving disputes through virtual conferencing. While limited physical hearings with rigorous rules have commenced,[i] our courts have limited infrastructural capacity to house adequate daily hearings. Additionally, the surge in COVID-19 cases and the wait for a vaccine mean that virtual conferencing is nevertheless here to stay. The pandemic has decreased the average disposal rates of high courts by 50% and subordinate courts by 70%,[ii] with pendency in the Supreme Court increasing by 3,287 cases.[iii]

Therefore, at this point, it is opportune to realize that the revolutionary potential of virtual courts can help improve judicial efficiency. Apart from facilitating remote access to justice, virtual courts are cost-effective and time-effective, reduce carbon footprint and the employment of dilatory tactics by parties.[iv] These benefits are particularly important given that annually one billion people require basic access to justice, but close to 30 per cent of them do not even take action.[v] Moving forward, this access to justice problem has to be solved through Information & Communications Technology (“ICT”), which will render courts to function as a ‘service’ and not a ‘place’.[vi] In cognizance of this, India launched the e-Court Mission Mode Project (“MMP”), to implement ICT in the Indian judiciary in 3 phases over 5 years.[vii]

However, this increasing change in the medium of our court processes will inevitably impact civil procedure in unprecedented ways. A survey found that 44.7% of participants experienced technical difficulty during the hearing, with a majority feeling that remote hearings were overall worse than physical hearings and less effective in terms of facilitating participation.[viii] The skill and digital divide will further compound power imbalances among parties, and thus their access to justice.[ix]

In light of this, it is important to understand the adequacy of the current response plans from the Court and governments. Therefore, in this paper, I will enumerate the legal and policy developments in India on virtual courts, both pre and post COVID-19. Subsequently, I will critically analyse these developments to elucidate implementational failures, and three procedural concerns: impact on due process, accountability and transparency, and privacy. Recognizing the inadequacy of legal tools in addressing these concerns, ultimately, I will utilize a technological and organizational design-based approach to propose solutions.

Tracing Legal and Policy Developments on Virtual Courts

India’s attempts to digitize the judiciary and associated processes predate the pandemic. However, the scale of impact has certainly increased since virtual conferencing has now become the dominant norm. Therefore, in this section, I will analyse how law and policy on virtual courts have evolved. However, before we proceed, it must be noted that virtual courts are broader than just virtual conferencing. Other than virtual conferencing, related processes of digitisation and automation, like e-filing and e-listing, need to be implemented alongside.

Pre-Pandemic:                      In February 2007, the government approved the Supreme Court E-Committee’s (“E-Committee”) strategic action plan to implement ICT in the Indian judiciary in 3 phases over 5 years.[x] It was co-opted as a ‘Mission Mode Project’ of the National e-Governance Plan,[xi] with the objective of re-engineering processes to enhance judicial productivity, and make the system more affordable, accessible, cost-effective, transparent and accountable. To this end, it launched 4 services: automation of case management, online provision of judicial/administrative services, information gateways between courts and government, and creation of judicial data grids.[xii]

Virtual courts, and associated processes, have found recognition and regulation in jurisprudence too. In State of Maharashtra v Dr Praful Desai, the Supreme Court allowed video conferencing for the recording of evidence.[xiii] It even observed that technological developments have enabled the possibility of virtual courts. This position has found, subsequently, substantial affirmation.[xiv] Courts have allowed video conferencing on conditions of health[xv] and geographical proximity.[xvi] However, under the revised position, parties cannot resolve matrimonial conflict through video conferencing.[xvii]

To safeguard these proceedings, courts have issued numerous guidelines. These include authenticating the identity of the witness and examiner, administration of the oath, acquainting non-party witnesses with the case, recording demeanour of witnesses on-screen, notarization of witness testimony/statement, and bearing of costs.[xviii] When video-conferencing is global, the foreign party must record evidence in the presence of an Indian embassy officer member.[xix]

Post-Pandemic:         To comply with social distancing guidelines, the Supreme Court passed an order, under Article 142 of the Constitution, to suspend the physical hearing.[xx] However, recognizing the importance of access to justice, it identified the duty of courts to use ICT like video-conferencing for dispensation of justice, in urgent matters. Accordingly, it issued directions: empowering itself and all high courts to adopt measures for the functioning of video-conferencing, instructing district courts to follow their respective high courts, for providing videoconference facilities and an amicus curia to the deprived, prohibiting recording of hearing without the mutual consent of parties, and requiring prompt reporting of technical glitches during the video call.

Pursuant to this, the apex court issued its standard operating procedure (“SOP”) mentioning the instructions for joining/conduct during virtual hearings and the technical requirements as well as the procedure for listing, mentioning, and e-filing.[xxi] Parties can choose between getting virtual links or availing the facility in the Court’s premises. However, only two appearance links and one viewing link is provided to parties. While the hearings are hosted on the “Vidyo” platform available either as a desktop application or on Android or iOS app store, parties are advised against using mobile phones for connectivity reasons. Communication between the registry and participants happens through private WhatsApp groups, with links being shared 30 minutes prior. Parties are forbidden from sharing these links, engaging in indecorous conduct, and recording the hearings. Furthermore, they are expected to ‘mute’ themselves, except when making submissions or responding to questions from the bench, and must ‘raise hand’ to indicate an intention to speak. The Court has also mandated the use of e-filing even if parties file physically at the registry and reduced the cost of filing by half, thus promoting digitization.[xxii]

Currently, virtual hearings are inaccessible to the public, but limited journalists can attend the Court’s physical video-conferencing room, to report on cases. The Court has now started hearing non-urgent matters too.[xxiii] The E-Committee has also resolved to institutionalize technology even after the pandemic ends.[xxiv]

While high courts can employ their own rules, 11 of them have adopted the model rules developed by the E-Committee.[xxv] Even those with unique rules broadly convey the same instructions,[xxvi] with the only difference being the hosting platform. The most popular is Vidyo, followed by Zoom, Jitsi, and Cisco Webex.[xxvii] However, pursuant to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ advisory declaring Zoom as unsafe, most high courts discontinued using it.[xxviii] Remarkably, the Delhi High Court issued comprehensive legislative rules covering not just the aforementioned matters, but also the procedure for service of summons, examination of persons, sharing of documents, and access to legal aid. It statutorily establishes a “remote point coordinator”, entrusted with ensuring seamless functioning and ingenuity of the hearing.[xxix]

However, other than Chandigarh District Court and a few others, district courts have failed to organize virtual hearings, given their infrastructure limitations.[xxx] Most tribunals are following the procedure established by the apex court.[xxxi]

Critically Analyzing Indian Developments on Virtual Courts

The Mission Mode Project

The implementation of Phase-II of the MMP has been sluggish, with only 3477 courtrooms having video-conferencing, and 14443 more courtrooms requiring this facility.[xxxii] 2992 sites are yet to still get WAN connectivity.[xxxiii] Only states like Delhi, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh have started the digitisation of both disposed and pending case records in the high courts and district courts.[xxxiv] E-filing is currently available only in four high courts,[xxxv] and in the NGT, NCLAT, and ITAT.[xxxvi] Even in these courts, only 50-600 cases were instituted through e-filings, as against the 1.9 lakh cases instituted through regular filings.[xxxvii] Despite listing being digital, the process involves significant human input, rather than the use of algorithms.[xxxviii] The implementation of this project will further stagnate because courts have been instructed to utilize their unused funds from Phase-II for meeting immediate needs.[xxxix]

The failure in technology up-gradation is also at the litigant and advocate’s end. The internet penetration in India is only 40%.[xl] 30% of the population lacks basic literacy, and nearly 90% lack digital literacy.[xli] At least 50% of advocates, mostly at the district and lower levels, do not own relevant devices and lack the requisite skills for virtual proceedings.[xlii] Thus, there is a clear digital, connectivity, and skill divide.

Evaluating SOPs- Emerging Legal Issue

• Due Process

The paradigm shift consequent to virtual hearings has raised numerous unprecedented due process concerns. The smoothness of accessing and using virtual court facilities, along with available facilities, has an inextricable impact on one’s right to properly present their case.

Technical Issues with the Platform:                       The most popular platform, Vidyo has received an extremely negative response. Reportedly, the platform frequently crashes,[xliii] and participants struggle to log in or are automatically logged out during court proceedings due to bandwidth issues with the platform. There were also difficulties in re-joining the hearing, once logged out.[xliv]

The screen sharing feature on Vidyo is ineffective, and thus advocates are precluded from even presenting documents before the bench.[xlv] There is also no means for the attorney and client to engage in private discussion during the hearings.[xlvi] The Control Room is tasked with managing the entire process flow. In several cases, advocates have complained of not being unmuted, despite raising their hands, or their chat messages going unread, thus affecting their opportunity to present arguments. This is especially the case in matters involving a large number of parties.[xlvii]

This adverse impact is compounded since there is no clarity on who to contact for technical issues.[xlviii] The authorities provided in the SOP are extremely unresponsive. Moreover, links for hearings are shared last minute, with communications on WhatsApp being inefficiently followed.[xlix]

The Court has been ignorant of these technical inefficiencies, passing adverse orders against at least 19 advocates who were unable to attend/connect due to technical issues.[l]

Issues with Associated Digital Process:      The processes of e-listing and e-filing are not user-friendly and unnecessarily verbose.[li] Under the current e-listing mechanism, there is uncertainty over acknowledgement of their filings, because the diary numbers are not immediately generated. Even the procedure for curing defects is inefficient, voluminous, and confusing. There is also a delay in the listing of matters, despite pleas of urgency in petitions.[lii] Support from the Registry in this regard is inadequate. There is also a need for improving coordination between sections of the Registry, with procedures being more consistent and transparent.[liii]

Furthermore, court records are not fully digitized, and when so, they cannot be remotely accessed in a centralized server.[liv]

Technical Requirements as Impediments:             The minimum technical requirements determine who can even access the platform, and therefore, determine who even has the opportunity to present their case, to begin with. Presently, the SOP of all Indian courts require a minimum of 2 MBPS broadband connection or 4G connections, and the onus is on the participant to ensure seamless connectivity. Given that 20% of the internet users in India are still dependent on 2G and 3G,[lv] this directly leads to their exclusion. Even digitally advanced nations like Singapore have stipulated 3G as the minimum requirement.[lvi] Moreover, even the 4G connections in India are relatively slow, with no service provider crossing the 70% LTE threshold.[lvii]

Even in data-intensive platforms like Skype, the minimum download speed requirement for a high-quality video call is only 400 KBPS, with group calls of up to 3 people supported at 512 KBPs, and 5 people at 2 MBPS.[lviii]

Additionally, all video-conferencing platforms have only been made available as desktop apps, or on Android or iOS app stores. The over 55 million users with KaiOS, operating mostly on Jio Phones,[lix] are denied access to videoconferencing, despite their phones supporting video calls.

(Dis)Comfort with Virtual Testimony and Demeanour Assessment:      The process of testimony, along with cross-examination, are in themselves strenuous for witnesses. The unfamiliar nature of virtual conferences can cause severe anxiety among witnesses while appearing, especially if they’re children, foreigners, or persons with disabilities.[lx]

During video conferencing, courts are allowed to assess the credibility of parties through their demeanour.[lxi] This is problematic because in a virtual setting it is extremely difficult for the judge to accurately understand the body language and emotions of the witness.[lxii] Studies find that one’s social and economic background has a heavy correlation with one’s perception, which plays out in the form of subtle choices like lighting and camera angles.[lxiii] Given these inaccurate and disproportionate adverse impacts, demeanour assessment during virtual hearings must be disallowed.

• Transparency and Accountability

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the importance of the rule of ‘open court’ in preserving and promoting accountability and transparency, and thus guaranteeing a fair trial.[lxiv] Presently, virtual hearings are not recorded, except for witness testimony in some cases,[lxv] even by the court. While theoretically limited journalists are allowed to attend these hearing, this is severely inadequate because this facility is accessible only to reporters who can make it to the Supreme Court’s video-conferencing chamber. Moreover, no such facility has been provided in most high courts. Therefore, there is no effective means of ensuring even a shadow of public pressure, which would bind the judge’s actions. This is contrary to jurisdictions like the UK, Australia, and Singapore where public participation has been allowed through live links or even live streaming.[lxvi]

Virtual conferencing presents an opportunity to eliminate the practical physical, informational, and temporal barriers to open courts. If hearings are online and broadcasted, then a large number of people can access them. For instance, over 3,500 people viewed a YouTube live stream of oral arguments taking place in the Kansas Supreme Court over Zoom. The digital landscape can even house much more people than the court logistically can.[lxvii]

However, we must be mindful that live streaming for virtual hearings is distinct from the cameras in the courtroom context.[lxviii] In the latter, even if live streaming is not allowed, the public and media can anyway access the trial. However, if there is no public access to virtual hearings, which entirely supplant in-person proceedings, only then participants to the proceedings have knowledge of events.

Livestreaming virtual proceedings do raise some legitimate privacy concerns because there is a loss of ‘practical obscurity’. This concept recognizes that there is a privacy interest in the information that is not secret but is otherwise difficult to obtain.[lxix] Public online hearings could make access to personal data easier because the process of transferring information from physical documents to a digital format will not have to be done.

• Privacy;

There are serious concerns regarding video-conferencing platforms, which are apps owned by foreign companies. The terms of use of these apps mandate cross-border transfer, and the business model of most of these companies involves selling their consumer’s data.[lxx] Therefore, there is the risk of commercial exploitation of data, either for general profiling of the individual or blackmailing them.[lxxi] This is indicated by the Globe24h.com incident, wherein a Romanian man downloaded judgements in bulk and indexed them so they would be optimized on Google results. Then, he charged people for removing embarrassing personal information from this website.

The biggest privacy challenges stem from authentication of the participants to the video conference and security of the data exchanged over the platform.[lxxii] Furthermore, the weak data security features of Vidyo and Zoom render them susceptible to unauthorized third-party access.[lxxiii] Inadequate training among Control Room members has also resulted in them engaging in risky practices, like using non-updated versions of the software, thus compromising privacy.[lxxiv]Such weaknesses may allow parties to illicitly obtain information to the detriment of their opponents, which they wouldn’t have gotten under civil discovery.

There is a petition before the Supreme Court that argues that transfer of such judicial and government data prima facie impacts national security, and violates laws such as the Public Records Act, 1993, and the Official Secrets Act, 1923.[lxxv]

Utilizing a Design-based Approach

The courts have so far used conventional legal tools to address the concerns of due process, accountability, and data security. There are inherent limitations to these tools, in that the scope of control is merely through prescriptions, which may not necessarily be followed.[lxxvi] The shift to video-conferencing leads to the emergence of unprecedented issues, which the law itself cannot redress.[lxxvii] On the other hand, using design as a policy tool not only expands the scope of control over the participants but ensures mandatory compliance due to technological automation.[lxxviii] Moreover, as an interdisciplinary and innovative approach, design-based approaches allow anticipation of risks and baking of countermeasures into the systems and operations, throughout the entire lifecycle of the product/service.[lxxix] Notably, this approach extends to only technological operation, but to organizational practices too.[lxxx]

Therefore, in this section, I will propose design-based changes that need to be implemented to address the aforementioned challenges to civil justice.

·      Due Process

The Platform:                        To address the aforementioned technical issues, there is a need for designing certain features onto the video-conferencing platform. Alike UK, USA, Australia, and Singapore, there must be designated and accessible icons for a private waiting room and a private pop-up chatbox.[lxxxi] During such private communication, the court proceedings must be paused, and no ex-parte discussion must occur. A more nuanced and effective screen sharing option must be introduced, wherein on clicking a designated button, the documents are first shared with the judge(s). Once approved, then this must be shared with other parties. Once any button has been clicked,[lxxxii] there should be a real-time notification that pops up in the centre of the court staff and/or judge’s screens. When participants are kept in the waiting room before the commencement of the hearing, real-time updates should be provided via the chat option. This is similar to the practice in Singapore, where constant updates are provided during the pre-hearing stage.[lxxxiii]

Given the extent of concerns from Vidyo, courts must move towards adopting a different platform altogether. In the medium-term, they can use Cisco Webex,[lxxxiv] or Microsoft teams given that most of these features exist herein. However, if the court intends to mainstream video-conferencing, it must indigenously develop its platform that consolidates best practices. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has started moving in this direction by inviting tenders for “a comprehensive plan for video conference hearings including hardware and support”.[lxxxv]

Organisational Practice;                      The video-conferencing screen must contain a help button, which opens a pop-up window that shows a user guide with relevant features available to a participant at their access level. If a participant finds this inadequate, there must be a support button, which allows them to connect to a helpline number. Most importantly, there should be designated officers assigned to each court who uninterruptedly serve as single points of contact.[lxxxvi]Before the platform is re-designed, the coordinators/members of the Control Room must be trained to be more proactive and responsive to the process flow. Anyhow, given peculiar circumstances, courts must largely refrain from passing adverse orders against litigants/advocates claiming to miss hearing due to technical issues.

Associated Digital Processes:                       Unlike the current system which relies on the physical generation and sharing of links, courts can publish the links for different virtual courts along with the cause list or send automated e-mails to advocates in advance. This will improve efficiency, and reduce anxiety for advocates.[lxxxvii]

As for e-filing, the Delhi High Court’s model should be adopted nationally.[lxxxviii] The only substantial information that required manual entry is the details of the parties. Thereafter, the entire case file can be uploaded as a single PDF. Even the diary numbers are immediately generated. For curing of defects, advocates are only be required to submit the entire final PDF file, as against separately uploading each page on which defect is secured.

Technical Requirements;     The video-conferencing platforms must also be available for KaiOS users. Additionally, the bandwidth requirement can be lowered to 512 KBPS or 1 MBPS. To provide access to litigants with lower speeds, the court can always reduce the number of participants on an ad-hoc basis, when required. Even in the worst case, to ensure wider inclusivity, courts can adopt the practice that one bench of the Delhi High Court did. Parties can be asked to submit a 15-minute-long video clip of their arguments within a week of the order. Thereafter, within a week, they must be asked to submit an additional brief note along with a 10-minute-long video clip in rebuttal.[lxxxix]

·      Transparency and Accountability

All virtual hearings should be recorded and stored using cryptography by the courts for a limited period. Additionally, voice-to-text transmission tools can be used for text records of hearings. To preserve privacy, automated redaction software can be used, which automatically redacts sensitive data fields. This is similar to the approach of certain courts like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.[xc]

While live streaming promotes greater accountability, there are privacy concerns, as outlined earlier. These concerns can be balanced using the following three-fold approach: (1) Where the case does not involve sensitive information or witnesses, then these can be live-streamed;[xci] (2) When this cannot be done, limited broadcasting can be followed in two ways. While live-streaming is permitted, subsequent dissemination of the hearing, especially by media, is prohibited.[xcii] While public broadcasting may be forbidden, a screen at the courthouse can be provided where these proceedings are broadcasted for people at the court to view;[xciii] and (3) Providing a separate viewing room were advocates, journalists, and CSOs can observe and report on court proceedings, without participating in them.

Lastly, to promote public awareness the digital portals of court websites must be regularly updated with weekly operational summaries of the working of the court and relevant policy updates, like in the UK.[xciv]

·      Privacy

Technological Design;          The platform must generate unique meeting IDs, which expire after a limited time. The entry to the hearing must be verified using two-factor authentication. This entails OTP verification in addition to entering the unique ID and password of the meeting. The host must have the option of “locking” the meeting once all participants have joined, to ensure unauthorized entry does not subsequently take place.[xcv] All communication on the platform must be end-to-end encrypted using SSL/TLS, which will obfuscate the message and prevent third parties from accessing personal data. Even the entire video session must be encrypted. The servers storing the data must be secure to prevent any end-point vulnerabilities. To this end, advanced threat protection features can be used to protect against sophisticated malware or hacking attempts.[xcvi] Developing an indigenous government-backed platform will also mitigate concerns of data commercialization.

Organisational Design:        Human errors still contribute to data leaks, despite advanced security designs.[xcvii] Thus, a safe user policy needs to be developed. Participants must be instructed to not connect through unsecured WiFi, or use weak password codes. The video-conferencing software must be routinely updated to ensure only the latest version is used. The coordinators/members of the Control Room must be trained on the necessary steps and contingency plans they must adopt to secure privacy.

Conclusion

The move towards digitization of the judiciary and the adoption of video-conferencing preceded the pandemic. However, the pandemic has necessitated their mainstream adoption. Indian courts have been prompt in issuing their SOPs, but these have been inadequate due to non-implementation and the inability of traditional legal tools to address unprecedented procedural issues, emerging from the mainstreaming of video conferencing.

Firstly, there are due process concerns, centred around inadequate hosting platforms, sub-standard organizational practices, inefficient ancillary processes, and non-inclusive technical requirements. Secondly, there is a lack of accountability and transparency because of derogation from the rule of open court, without any effective alternative measures. Thirdly, there are privacy concerns as regards unauthorized participation, the secrecy of data exchanged, and commercial exploitation of data.

Adopting a design-based approach not only addresses areas conventional legal tools can’t, but also improves efficiency and automates compliance. To this end, several technological and organizational design changes, as suggested, can be made to effectively address emerging procedural issues.

 

End Notes:

[i] PTI, ‘Supreme Court to begin physical hearing of cases in limited manner, releases SOP’ (The Print, 31 August 2020` <https://theprint.in/judiciary/supreme-court-to-begin-physical-hearing-of-cases-in-limited-manner-releases-sop/492699/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[ii] Sruthisagar Yamunan, ‘Covid impact: Cases disposed of by High Courts drop by half, district courts by 70%’ (Scroll, 4 September 2020) <https://scroll.in/article/971860/covid-impact-cases-disposed-by-high-courts-drop-by-half-district-courts-by-70> accessed 14 January 2021.

[iii] ‘Court Data: Quantifying the Effect of COVID-19’ (Supreme Court Observer, 29 April 2020) <https://www.scobserver.in/court-by-numbers?court_by_number_id=quantifying-the-effect-of-covid-19> accessed 14 January 2021; Given that the National Judicial Data Grid does not provide statistics on pendency for the Supreme Court, calculating impact on pendency due to COVID-19 is tricky. One metric that can be used is number of judgements delivered, which was 88 in March 2020, the same as March 2018, i.e., when the swine flu outbreak paralyzed the court. While this doesn’t accurately account for situational peculiarities, it provides an indication that the court has managed to fair well, by its own past metric. This discussion is notwithstanding the general impact the pandemic will have on case institution and disposal in the apex court.

[iv] Nikitha, ‘Impact of Video Conferencing on Court Proceedings with Respect to Litigants and Lawyers’ (BnB Legal, 14 August 2020) <https://bnblegal.com/article/impact-of-video-conferencing-on-court-proceedings-with-respect-to-litigants-and-lawyers/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[v] Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (OUP 2019) 27.

[vi] Anuradha Mukherjee, Amita Katragadda, Ayushi Singhal, & Shubhankar Jain, ‘From the Gavel to the Click: COVID 19 poised to be the inflection point for Online Courts in India’ <https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2020/04/gavel-to-click-covid-19-online-courts-in-india/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[vii] Ibid; ‘Indian Courts and e-Governance initiative’ (Vikaspedia) <https://vikaspedia.in/e-governance/online-legal-services/how-do-i-do> accessed 14 January 2021.

[viii] Dr Natalie Byrom, Sarah Beardon, & Dr Abby Kendrick, ‘The impact of COVID-19 measures on the civil justice system’ (2020) Civil Justice Council, 9 <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CJC-Rapid-Review-Final-Report-f.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[ix] ‘Standing Committee Report Summary’ (PRS Legislative Research, September 2020) <https://www.prsindia.org/report-summaries/functioning-virtual-courts> accessed 14 January 2021.

[x] Shalini Seetharam & Sumathi Chandrashekaran, ‘E-Courts in India: From Policy Formulation to Implementation’ (2016) Vidhi Center for Legal Policy, 6-8 <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/eCourtsinIndia_Vidhi.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021; Vikaspedia (n 7).

[xi] Seetharam (n 10) 8-9.

[xii] Phase-II of the project already contemplates video-conferencing and recording facility for courts and jails. So far, as many as 3,388 court complexes and 16,755 court rooms across India have been computerised, with video-conferencing equipment available in 3,240 court complexes and 1,272 jails, see: Mukherjee (n 6).

[xiii] (2003) 4 SCC 601.

[xiv] Twentieth Century Fox Film v NRI Film Production Associates AIR (2003) Kar 148; Amitabh Bagchi v Ena Bhagchi AIR (2005) Cal 11; Sujay Mitra v State of West Bengal (2015) SCC Online Cal 1191.

[xv] Alcatel India Limited v Koshika Telecom Ltd (2004) SCC Online Del 705.

[xvi] Bodala Murali Krishna v Smt Badola Prathim AIR (2007) AP 43; Dr. Kunal Saha v Dr. Sukumar Mukhurjee (2006) SCC Online NCDRC 35.

[xvii] Santini v Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 62.

[xviii] Bagchi (n 14).

[xix] Desai (n 13).

[xx] Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5/2020; Jai Brunner & Balu Nair, ‘Switching to Video’ (Supreme Court Observer, 6 April 2020) <https://www.scobserver.in/the-desk/switching-to-video> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxi] ‘Standard Operating Procedure for Ld. Advocate/Party-in-person for e-Filing, Mentioning, Listing and Video Conferencing Hearing’ (Supreme Court of India, 4 July 2020) <http://scobserver-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/477/SOP_04072020.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxii] SCO Editorial Team, ‘COVID Coverage: Court’s Functioning’ (Supreme Court Observer, 28 July 2020) <https://www.scobserver.in/the-desk/covid-coverage-court-s-functioning> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] ‘Use of technology must be institutionalised even after Lockdown: Justice Chandrachud in video conference with HC judges manning E-committees’ (Bar and Bench, 4 April 2020) <https://www.barandbench.com/news/use-of-technology-must-be-institutionalised-even-after-lockdown-justice-chandrachud-in-video-conference-with-hc-judges-manning-e-committees> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxv] Debayan Roy, ‘Supreme Court allows High Courts to frame own rules for virtual hearings, says media access “should only be for output and not input”’ (Bar and Bench, 26 October 2020) <https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/supreme-court-allows-high-courts-to-frame-own-rules-for-virtual-hearings> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxvi] The main changes involve differing instructions for differing e-filing and e-listing. Others are minor additions in instructions relating to conduct during the hearing, and differing steps, for differing platforms, for joining a video-conference using the virtual link.

[xxvii] Amulya Ashwathappa, Arunav Kaul, Chockalingam Muthian, et al, ‘Video Conferencing in Indian Courts: A Pathway to the Justice Platform’ (2020) Daksh Whitepaper Series on Next Generation Justice Platform Paper 4, 62-67 <https://dakshindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Paper-4-_Video-Conferencing-in-Indian-Courts.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxviii] ‘Impact of COVID19 on functioning of the Indian Judiciary – Weekly Update on Virtual Courts’ (Khaitan & Co, 4 May 2020) <https://www.khaitanco.com/thought-leaderships/Impact-of-COVID19-on-functioning-of-the-Indian-Judiciary-Weekly-Update-on-Virtual-Courts-1242020_2042020> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxix] Notification No. 325/Rules/DHC dated 1 June 2020.

[xxx] Gautam Kagalwala, ‘Just Virtually’ (India Business Law Journal, 19 August 2020) <https://law.asia/video-conferencing-lockdown/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxxi] PTI, ‘NCLAT issues standard operating procedure for virtual hearings from June 1’ (Financial Express, 30 May 2020) <https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/nclat-issues-standard-operating-procedure-for-virtual-hearings-from-june-1/1976249/> accessed 14 January 2021; For ITAT and NGT, see: Nikitha (n 4).

[xxxii] Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, Functioning of Virtual Courts(Rajya Sabha 2020, 103) 15.

[xxxiii] Ibid.

[xxxiv] Amulya Ashwathappa, ‘The Parliamentary Standing Committee On Virtual Courts In India’ (Daksh, 16 September 2020) <https://dakshindia.org/the-parliamentary-standing-committee-on-virtual-courts-in-india/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxxv] These are the High Courts in Delhi, Bombay, Punjab and Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh.

[xxxvi] Ashwathappa (n 27) 17.

[xxxvii] Deepika Kinhal, Ameen Jauhar, Tarika Jain, et al, ‘Virtual Courts in India’ (2020) Vidhi Center for Legal Policy Strategy Paper, 20 <https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20200501__Strategy-Paper-for-Virtual-Courts-in-India_Vidhi-1.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xxxviii] Ashwathappa (n 27) 18.

[xxxix] Bar and Bench (n 24).

[xl] Digbijay Mishra & Madhav Chanchani, ‘For the first time, India has more rural net users than urban’ (The Times of India, 6 May 2020) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/for-the-first-time-india-has-more-rural-net-users-than-urban/articleshow/75566025.cms> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xli] Ashwathappa (n 27) 20.

[xlii] Murali Krishnan & Smriti Kak Ramachandran, ‘House panel backs e-courts’ (Hindustan Times, 12 September 2020) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/house-panel-backs-e-courts/story-F5GNGVNcYT3dTHHdx4uMHJ.html> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xliii] Dipak Mondal, ‘Coronavirus lockdown: Fear of data security over video-conference apps Indian courts use’ (Business Today, 7 May 2020) <https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/coronavirus-lockdown-fear-of-data-security-over-video-conference-apps-indian-courts-use/story/403154.html> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xliv] Murali Krishnan, ‘Supreme Court should migrate from Vidyo app: Survey’ (Hindustan Times, 23 September 2020) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-should-migrate-from-vidyo-app-survey/story-S5mMZD3K29bYTfoUvZUi2J.html> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xlv] Bhabna Das, D. Abhinav Rao, Harsh Parashar, et al, ‘Survey Report on the Virtual Systems Adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’ (29 August 2020) <https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-09/05eb71ca-d07f-4ef1-9e6c-9d49ae0f64eb/Survey_Report_on_Virtual_Courts_System_adopted_by_SC.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xlvi] Krishnan (n 44).

[xlvii] Das (n 45).

[xlviii] Krishnan (n 44).

[xlix] Das (n 45).

[l] Ibid

[li] Ibid

[lii] Krishnan (n 44).

[liii] Das (n 45).

[liv] Kagalwala (n 30).

[lv] Sandhya Keelrey, ‘Internet access across India in 2019, by type of mobile network’ (Statista, 16 October 2020) <https://www.statista.com/statistics/1115260/india-internet-connection-by-type-of-network-mobile/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lvi] Neeraj Arora, ‘Serving Justice in COVID-19 Pandemic, only option is Virtual Court: an Indian Prospective’ (2020) Cyber Research and Innovation Society, 34 <https://cyberpandit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Virtual-Court-Room_HandBook.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lvii] ‘State of Mobile Networks: India’ (Open Signal, April 2018) <https://www.opensignal.com/reports/2018/04/india/state-of-the-mobile-network> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lviii] ‘How much bandwidth does Skype need?’ (Skype) <https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA1417/how-much-bandwidth-does-skype-need> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lix] Simon Sharwood, ‘India’s contact-tracing app unleashes KaiOS on feature phones’ (The Register, 17 May 2020) <https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/17/contact_tracing_on_feature_phones/#:~:text=Aarogya%20Setu%20App%20is%20now,join%20the%20fight%20against%20COVID19.&text=Jio%20currently%20offers%20two%20phones,Blackberry-like%20%2440%20model%202> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lx] Arunav Kaul, ‘Examining The Use Of Video Conferencing In Indian Courts’ (Daksh, 30 April 2020) <https://dakshindia.org/examining-the-use-of-video-conferencing-in-indian-courts/> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lxi] Paragraph 8.6, Notification No. 325/Rules/DHC dated 1 June 2020.

[lxii] Nikitha (n 4).

[lxiii] Meredith Rossner & David Tait, ‘Courts are moving to video during coronavirus, but research shows it’s hard to get a fair trial remotely’ (The Conversation, 8 April 2020) <https://theconversation.com/courts-are-moving-to-video-during-coronavirus-but-research-shows-its-hard-to-get-a-fair-trial-remotely-134386> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lxiv] Naresh Shridhar v State of Maharashtra (1966) 3 SCR 744 [The primary dispute arose out of a civil defamation case filed against the petitioner, who was a journalist, by the Thackerys. The petitioner challenged the lower courts decision on the ground of its in-camera nature. The Court affirmed the importance of open courts in ensuring objective and fair administration of justice as well as preservation and growth of our democracy. Subsequently, it examined the cases where exceptions can be made, such as in rape trials or matrimonial disputes.]; Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639 [The petitioners, as public-spirited persons, petitioned the Court to direct that cases of national and constitutional importance must be live streamed in a manner accessible to the public. The Court recognized the importance of open justice in ensuring accountability, transparency, and freedom of speech. As an extension of this principle, it noted that live streaming should be allowed. It then amended its own rules, and provided detailed guidelines on live streaming.]

[lxv] Paragraph 8.9, Notification No. 325/Rules/DHC dated 1 June 2020.

[lxvi] Mukherjee (n 6).

[lxvii] Amy Salyzyn, ‘“Trial by Zoom”: What Virtual Hearings Might Mean for Open Courts, Participant Privacy and the Integrity of Court Proceedings’ (Slaw, 17 April 2020) <http://www.slaw.ca/2020/04/17/trial-by-zoom-what-virtual-hearings-might-mean-for-open-courts-participant-privacy-and-the-integrity-of-court-proceedings/> accessed 14 January 2021; While the Supreme Court has expressed support for limited livestreaming matters of constitutional/national importance in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (n 63), nothing has ever come of this, see: Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (n 32) 7-10.

[lxviii] Salyzyn (n 67).

[lxix] Jane Bailey & Jacquelyn Burkell, ‘Revisiting the Open Court Principle in an Era of Online Publication: Questioning Presumptive Public Access to Parties’ and Witnesses’ Personal Information’ (2017) 48(1) Ottawa LR 147, 167-178.

[lxx] Arora (n 56) 44.

[lxxi] Graeme Hamilton, ‘How a now-defunct Romanian website exposed tension between privacy and openness in Canadian courts’ (National Post, 6 April 2017) <https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/how-a-now-defunct-romanian-website-exposed-tension-between-privacy-and-openness-in-canadian-courts> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lxxii] Arora (n 56) 23.

[lxxiii] Arora (n 56) 23-24.

[lxxiv] Ibid.

[lxxv] Mondal (n 43).

[lxxvi] Woodrow Hartzog, Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control Design of New Technologies (HUP 2018) 7-11.

[lxxvii] Ibid.

[lxxviii] Ibid.

[lxxix] Ann Cavoukian, ‘Privacy by Design: The 7 Foundational Principles, Implementation and Mapping of Fair Information Practices’ (Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2011) <https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/pbd_implement_7found_principles.pdf> accessed 14 January 2021.

[lxxx] Ibid.

[lxxxi] Ashwathappa (n 27) 28.

[lxxxii] This could include the ‘raise hand’ or ‘screen share’ or ‘text in chat box or ‘request to move to private breakout room’.

[lxxxiii] Arora (n 56) 34-36.

[lxxxiv] In a survey, this emerged as the most popular choice among advocates of the Supreme Court.

[lxxxv] Krishnan (n 44).

[lxxxvi] Das (n 45).

[lxxxvii] Ibid.

[lxxxviii] Practice Direction for Electronic Filing in the High Court of Delhi, accessible at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/Notification/NotificationFile_LC0S0PP0.PDF.

[lxxxix] Ashish Prasad & Rohit Sharma, ‘Delhi HC’s VC Hearing Rules – Taking the Virtual Courts System Forward’ (Law Street India, 5 June 2020) <http://www.lawstreetindia.com/experts/column?sid=398> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xc] Ashwathappa (n 27) 46.

[xci] Colette Allen, ‘Open justice and remote court hearings under the UK’s Coronavirus Act’ (International Bar Association 2020).

[xcii] This is similar to the position taken up by the Canadian Supreme Court in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v Attorney General of Canada[2011] 1 SCR 19 [In this case, Stephen Dufour was charged with aiding suicide, and at his trial a video, containing a statement by him, was admitted as evidence. Journalists were permitted to view the film. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation petitioned the Court requesting that it should be allowed to broadcast this video. It denied this request but held that this is not a blanket rule. In granting this request, factors such as “the serenity of the hearing, trial fairness, and the fair administration of justice” should be considered. Most importantly, it noted that there is a difference in having to testify in open court and having said testimony telecasted into the houses of Canadians.].

[xciii] This is similar to what the New York City Court has done, see: Jamiles Lartey, ‘The Judge Will See You On Zoom, But The Public Is Mostly Left Out’ (The Marshall Project, 13 April 2020) <https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/04/13/the-judge-will-see-you-on-zoom-but-the-public-is-mostly-left-out> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xciv] Jeff Galway & Dr. Urs Hoffmann-Nowotny, ‘Impact of COVID-19 on Court Operations & Litigation Practice’ (International Bar Association Litigation Committee 2020) 33.

[xcv] Arora (n 56) 23-24.

[xcvi] Nate Lord, ‘What is Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)?’ (Digital Guardian, 17 July 2020) <https://digitalguardian.com/blog/what-advanced-threat-protection-atp> accessed 14 January 2021.

[xcvii] Arora (n 56) 31-33.