Page 126 - DRI ANNUAL REPORT EBOOK

admissibility of electronic records and opined that development of law in India, unlike these countries, has not kept pace with technology to a great extent. It also observed that the major jurisdictions of the world have come to terms with the change of times and the development of technology and fine-tuned their legislations. Therefore, it is the need of the hour that there is a relook at Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, introduced 20 years ago, by Act 21 of 2000.
2. Use of Video Conferencing to record evidence:
2.1 Outbreak of global epidemic COVID-19 has necessitated the immediate adoption of suitable measures to ensure social distancing simultaneously with delivery of public services.
2.1 Hon’ble Supreme Court took the lead and immediately came up with significant Judgement about need for use of technology. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 6th April 2020 in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) No.5/2020, issued guidelines for court functioning through video conferencing. Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid Order held that:
Para 5: Para 6:
held that the term ‘evidence’ includes electronic evidence and that video conferencing may be used to record evidence. It observed that developments in technology have opened up the possibility of virtual courts which are similar to physical courts. The Court held:
“Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place...Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence... In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other... Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”.
This is not a matter of discretion but of duty.
Video conferencing shall b e mainly employed for hearing arguments whether at the trial stage or at the appellate stage.
Para 3:
Para 4:
Technology has facilitated advances in speed, accessibility and connectivity which enable the dispensation of justice to take place in diverse settings and situations without compromising the core legal principles of adjudication.
The use of technology found judicial recognition in precedent of this Court in State of Maharashtra v Praful Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601]. This Court
2.3 Aforesaid judgement become the solid foundation for various departments / institutions to come up with guidelines for online processing of various government procedures including “conduct of personal hearing” . Initially advisory
92 SMUGGLING IN INDIA REPORT 2019-20