1 AEP-8.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL
JURISDICTION
APPLICATION NO.8 OF 2011
IN
ELECTION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009
Indur Kartar Chhugani ....
Applicant
Vs.
Ms Priya Sunil Dutt ....
Respondent
Shri I.K. Chhugani, Applicant
in-person.
S/Shri P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior
Counsel
a/w L.M. Acharya i/b Satyam
Acharya for
the Respondent.
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
P.C:
1. This is an
application for granting
permission to the applicant to
video-record
further proceedings in Election Petition
No.1
of 2009 at his own costs in the interest
of
transparency, justice, equity and fair
play on
such terms and conditions as the Court
may deem
fit. The application has been made
because the
applicant has grievance about the manner
in
which two Hon'ble Judges of this Court
had
dealt with his petition. The learned
counsel
for the respondent may be right in
submitting
that the contentions raised in para 10
of the
application are bordering on contempt.
All the
same, that is a matter which may be
separately
looked into. The learned counsel for the
respondent may also be right in
submitting that
since the applicant has already
approached
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India by
writing a
letter for similar prayer, since the
orders of
Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India would
bind
this Court, this application may not be
looked
into. However, since the applicant has
approached Hon'ble The Chief Justice of
India,
possibly in administrative capacity and
not by
filing any application on the judicial
side,
merely because the applicant has written
a
letter to Hon'ble The Chief Justice of
India,
this application could not be rejected
only on
that ground. The learned counsel for the
respondent is right in submitting that
this is
a matter of policy which would require a
consideration since it would have far
reaching
consequences.
2. The
applicant has pointed out, by
submitting a compilation possibly drawn
from
internet, showing that in several
countries
various types of recordings of Court
proceedings are permitted. The question
is not
whether Judges themselves would like
proceedings in the Courts to be recorded
or
not. In fact, if the proceedings are
recorded,
the Judges may be happier, since no
allegations
could be made against the Judges as to
what
happened in the Court. But there are
other
players in the Court like Lawyers and
litigants. None of them come to the
Court with
a written script. Many a times, many
submissions are made across the bar. As
human
beings, those who participate in Court
proceedings are also fallible and may
not be
expected to be always on the guard or to
use
the most appropriate expression, just as
the
applicant has also stated in para 10 of
his
application that, Even words attributed
to the
Petitioner while leaving court are
incorrect,
actually the petitioner told the court
while
leaving `You are trying to
save election of
Priya Dutt by hook or
by crook'.
Ordinarily, a person would not have
uttered such words had he known the
consequences.
3. In any case,
since the video-recording
would involve scrutiny of the conduct of
all
the actors in the Court, this
application has
possibly more far reaching consequences
than
the main petition itself. It may change
the
course of conduct of the Courts. It is
not any
question of whether one Judge (R.C.
Chavan)
wants proceedings in his Court to be
recorded
or not because once I allow this
application,
it would become a precedent which may
have to
be followed by the lower Courts before
whom
such applications may be made.
Therefore, this
application would require a deeper
scrutiny.
Hence, notice of this application may be
issued
to the Advocate General, the Registrar
General
of this Court, the Registrar (O.S.)/
Prothonotary & Senior Master as well
the
Secretary of the Bar Council of
Maharashtra and
Goa soliciting their responses, if any,
within
a period of fortnight, since the main
petition
itself is pending hearing for over
two-and-half
years. Simultaneously, the Registry of
this
Court, particularly the Registrar
(Legal) and
the Deputy Registrar (IT) may initiate
process
for evolving the modalities or rules for
proper
recording of proceedings in Courts in a
tamperproof
manner and preserving them in a
tamperproof
manner. Allowing parties to video-record
the Court proceedings will be hazardous
and
therefore if at all recording of Court
proceedings is to be allowed, it would
have to
be done in a proper manner, ensuring
that not
only what the Judge speaks is recorded
but also
ensuring that everybody in the Court
room is
within the sweep of the camera so that
every
action in the Court can be recorded. It
would
also be necessary to ensure that such
recording
is preserved in a tamper-proof manner
and
tamper-proof copies are made available
to the
persons concerned.
4. A recent
incident in the Delhi High
Court may also make judicial
administration
think about the possibility of
video-recording
of Court proceedings, since if Court
proceedings are recorded and telecast,
the
necessity of permitting members of the
public,
to visit the Court, could be avoided and
a
large chunk of persons who would be
desirous
of watching Court proceedings could be
allowed
to do so, either at their homes or at
some
waiting rooms so that the security of
the Court
is not breached.
5. To avoid loss
of time, the Registrar
(Legal) should immediately take up the
task of
evolving the modalities of recording
proceedings and may come back to this
Court
within the period of two weeks which has
been
given to the Advocate General, the
Registrar
General of this Court, the
Registrar(O.S.)/
Prothonotary & Senior Master, and
the Secretary
of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa for
responding to the Court notice. The
Deputy
Registrar (IT) may immediately start the
exercise of ascertaining the type of
equipment
that may be required to be installed in
Courts,
the costs involved and the time that may
be
required for making Courts ready for
videorecording
of its proceedings. This exercise may
also be carried out within two weeks,
identifying the parties who may be
willing to
provide this infrastructure speedily.
Since the
applicant has expressed his willingness
to bear
the costs in this regard so far as his
application/petition is concerned - it
may not
be necessary to spend any time in
tendering
process.
6. List the
application on 26-9-2011, at
3:00 p.m.. If the applicant does not
provide
enough number of copies for being sent
to the
Advocate General, the Registrar General
of this
Court, the Registrar (O.S.)/Prothonotary
&
Senior Master and the Secretary of the
Bar
Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the
Registry
may itself do so, since the issue is
important.
The applicant may also, in addition to
the
service through Court, serve all these
authorities independently so that there
is no
loss of time.
7. The Registry may
also immediately
write to the Registrar Generals of all
the
other High Courts by fax, e-mail or
other
appropriate means of communication and
find out
what are the practices in those Courts
in this
regard.
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)
Application
to Video Record Court proceedings by Bombay
High Court
Letter
to Chief Justice of India for transparency
and Justice
2
Judges recuse themselves from case.
Full
Election Petition
Witness
Returning Officer Mahendra Warbhuvan
Witness
Returning Officer Dr Ashwini Joshi
Affidavit
filed on 22-07-2011
HOME
Corruption
in
India,Mumbai,happy,health,Corruption,police,delhi,Bombay,chennai,dubai,constittution,
elderly,corruption,control,bangalore,calcutta,pune,lucknow,change,sessions,court,high
court,Supreme
court,improve,justice,courts,hafta,chhugani,Chhugani,
Pratibha
Patil,Rajnikant,verdict,criminal,
system,senior citizens,Times of
India,High Court,Supreme Court of
India,judgement,
Harish Shetty,Shilpa
Shetty,Bandra,Khar,Brown
Sugar,Drugs,Sindhi,Xavier
College,Stephrns
College,Starplus,Jethmalani,memon,Dawood,BharatShah,Barkha,ndtv,Bribes,Infosys,Cnn,Aajtak,Zee,Gandhi,
Sabharwal,Jessica Lal |