Introduction
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 marks a crucial shift in India’s criminal justice system, emphasizing technological integration to improve efficiency and accessibility. One of the most transformative elements of these reforms is the adoption of audio-video electronic means, including video conferencing.
Video conferencing has turned out to be a powerful tool to address traditional inefficiencies in the judicial system, such as logistical delays, witness intimidation, and the challenges posed by geographical barriers. By enabling real-time communication and recording capabilities, it provides a practical solution to the long-standing issues of accessibility and inclusivity.
This article explains the specific provisions of BNSS supporting video conferencing, its applications in various circumstances, landmark judgments that have validated its use, and the benefits it brings to India’s judiciary.
Key Provisions Supporting Video Conferencing
BNSS includes several sections that formalize and promote the use of audio-video electronic means in judicial proceedings, ensuring the system is transparent, efficient, and inclusive.
Section 2(1)(a): Definition of Audio-Video Electronic Means
This section provides a legal framework by defining "audio-video electronic means" as tools that enable real-time communication or visual and audio transmission. These tools facilitate legal processes such as live hearings, recording of evidence, and secure communication between parties involved in a case. The inclusion of this definition ensures that the use of technology in legal proceedings is recognized as a legitimate and standardized practice under Indian law.
Section 105: Recording of Search and Seizure
This section mandates that all search and seizure operations must be recorded using video technology. By integrating audio-video means into this process, the section ensures greater transparency and accountability during critical investigative stages. It eliminates ambiguity and provides an auditable record of all actions undertaken, reducing the possibility of disputes about the legality of such operations.
Section 308: Evidence in the Presence of the Accused
Under this section, the accused can participate in proceedings remotely using video conferencing when physical presence is not feasible. It safeguards the accused’s right to be present during evidence collection or trial, ensuring procedural fairness while addressing logistical or security concerns. This provision ensures that justice is not delayed or denied due to the inability of the accused to appear in person.
Section 321: Execution of Commissions
This section empowers the judiciary to examine witnesses and evidence through video conferencing under a judicial commission. By allowing virtual interactions, it ensures that geographical limitations do not hinder the examination of critical evidence or testimony. This provision broadens the scope of judicial access, ensuring that the court can function effectively regardless of the physical location of witnesses or evidence.
Section 336: Testimonies by Public Servants and Experts
This section allows public servants, experts, and officers involved in a case to provide evidence via video conferencing. It reduces delays caused by their inability to attend proceedings physically due to their professional commitments. This section also ensures that the expertise required for justice delivery is made available without unnecessary logistical constraints.
Section 209: Cross-Border Evidence Collection
This section facilitates the collection of evidence and testimonies from individuals located in other states or countries. It establishes a legal mechanism for courts to interact with parties beyond their jurisdiction using video conferencing, ensuring that geographical boundaries do not impede the judicial process. This section strengthens international cooperation and enhances the efficiency of cross-border legal proceedings.
Section 305: Witness Examination in Prisons
This section authorizes the virtual examination of witnesses or accused persons held in prison. By leveraging video conferencing, it reduces logistical challenges associated with transporting prisoners to courtrooms. It also enhances security and ensures that judicial processes involving incarcerated individuals are conducted efficiently.
Section 530: Electronic Proceedings
This section mandates the use of electronic means, including video conferencing, for conducting trials and related legal proceedings. It institutionalizes the integration of technology into the judicial system, providing a structured framework for courts to adopt video conferencing. This section underscores the commitment of BNSS to streamline case management and reduce delays in justice delivery.
Circumstances for Using Video Conferencing
Video conferencing is a critical component of the BNSS and is applicable in various legal scenarios to ensure fairness and efficiency in proceedings:
Remote Participation in Court Proceedings:
Enables parties, lawyers, and judges to participate in hearings from different locations, overcoming logistical barriers and ensuring timely resolution of cases.
Recording and Presentation of Evidence:
Facilitates the recording of statements, evidence collection, and presentation during trials, particularly in cases where physical presence is not feasible.
Search and Seizure Operations:
Ensures that search and seizure activities are video-recorded for transparency and legal compliance.
Witness Testimonies:
Allows witnesses to provide testimony remotely, addressing challenges related to distance, security, or health.
Prisoner Hearings:
Reduces the need to physically transport prisoners to courtrooms, enhancing both security and judicial efficiency.
Inter-Jurisdictional and Cross-Border Cases:
Supports evidence collection and testimonies across state and national boundaries, ensuring seamless judicial collaboration.
In State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003), the Supreme Court clarified that "recording evidence" does not require physical presence in court and validated the use of video conferencing. This landmark judgment provided the legal basis for incorporating audio-video technology into judicial proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) emphasized the need for timely trials and fair treatment of the accused. Section 308 upholds these principles by allowing virtual participation without delaying the judicial process.
Benefits of Video Conferencing in Legal Proceedings
The integration of video conferencing into the judiciary as mandated by BNSS offers several significant benefits:
Judicial Efficiency:
Video conferencing expedites hearings and trials, reducing delays caused by logistical or procedural constraints. This ensures that justice is delivered in a timely manner, addressing the longstanding issue of judicial backlogs.
Cost Savings:
By minimizing the need for travel, accommodation, and other logistical arrangements, video conferencing reduces expenses for litigants, lawyers, and the judiciary.
Enhanced Transparency and Accountability:
Video recordings of proceedings, evidence collection, and search operations provide an auditable trail, ensuring procedural fairness and reducing the likelihood of disputes.
Improved Accessibility:
Video conferencing ensures that individuals from remote or rural areas can participate in legal proceedings without the burden of travel. It also empowers vulnerable witnesses to testify in a safe and secure environment.
Security and Safety:
By enabling remote participation, video conferencing minimizes security risks, particularly in cases involving high-profile defendants or witnesses under threat.
Adaptability During Emergencies:
The flexibility of video conferencing allows courts to function during crises such as pandemics or natural disasters, ensuring the continuity of judicial processes.
Environmentally Sustainable:
Reducing physical travel and paper usage contributes to the environmental sustainability of the judicial system.
Conclusion
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has institutionalized the use of audio-video electronic means, including video conferencing, as a cornerstone of judicial modernization. Provisions such as Sections 2(1)(a), 308, 105, 321, and 530 demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to enhancing efficiency, transparency, and accessibility. Landmark judgments like State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003) and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) have further validated its use, paving the way for a future-ready legal system. As India embraces this technological shift, video conferencing is set to play a pivotal role in ensuring justice is delivered swiftly and equitably.
Comments