The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that videoconferencing facilities should be utilised to ensure that the administration of justice remains “accessible”.
Justice Virender Aggarwal passed the ruling while setting aside a Chandigarh trial court’s order that had declined permission to record the testimony of a key witness through videoconferencing in a succession and inheritance dispute concerning a will registered over four decades back.
“The very object underlying the implementation of such procedural mechanisms is to ensure that the administration of justice remains accessible, efficient, and adaptable to practical exigencies without causing undue hardship to litigants or witnesses,” the court said.
The ruling came on a revision petition filed by a litigant seeking permission to examine an attesting witness, whose testimony was stated to be essential for proving the due execution and attestation of a will dated December 21, 1979, registered on January 25, 1980.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Jatin Bansal, Keerti Sandhu and Prabhjot Kaur contended that the witness was indispensable. An application had been moved before the trial court seeking permission to record her testimony through videoconferencing as she was around 78 years old, residing in Gurugram and attending to her ailing husband, making it difficult for her to travel to Chandigarh for deposition.
The trial court dismissed the request. Allowing the petition, the High Court noted: “…the requisite technological infrastructure for conducting proceedings through videoconferencing has been made available to all courts with the object of facilitating access to justice and ensuring expeditious adjudication of cases.”
Referring to the videoconferencing rules framed by the High Court, Justice Aggarwal noted that a provision permitted the use of videoconferencing at all stages of proceedings. Rule 8 specifically dealt with the recording of witness testimony through videoconferencing.
The High Court held that the request for examination of the witness through videoconferencing could not be termed 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,” the court observed.
Addressing a possible concern regarding identification of signatures and documents during virtual examination, the court clarified that “copies of the documents proposed to be shown to the witness may be transmitted by the Trial Court to the witness in advance, enabling the same to be duly put to her during the course of examination through videoconferencing in accordance with law”.
