Why audio-video recording is not allowed in the courts?
Guest
(Querist) 20 August 2010
This query is : Resolved
What is the harm to legal proceedings or society,if we record the proceedings of the courts?
Is not this allowed in other countries also?
Guest
(Expert) 20 August 2010
1, There is no Order / Circular / Direction / Section / Act which prohibits so.
2. Two years back I heard a Bangalore Court practicing Ld. Advocate filed such application for allowing audio recording (non intrusive) for taking verbal arguments notes for reference in future pleadings. I am honest to say I don't know of the relief. But one can try the audio route first as in my opinion video recording of your own case unless court directs for in-camera is not of much use in future pleadings.
3. I am not aware of such relief from various foreign jurisprudence and offers corrction from ld. experts.
A V Vishal
(Expert) 20 August 2010
Under THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 :
Publication of information relating to proceeding in chambers or in camera not contempt except in certain cases
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding before any court sitting in chambers or in camera except in the following cases, that is to say--
(a) where the publication is contrary to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force;
(b) where the court, on ground of public policy or in exercise of any power vested in it, expressly prohibits the publication of all information relating to the proceeding or of information of the description which is published;
(c) where the court sits in chambers on in camera for reason connected with public order or the security of the State, the publication of information relating to those proceedings;
(d) where the information relates to a secret process, discovery or invention which is an issue in proceedings.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate summary of the whole or any part, of an order made by a court sitting in chambers or in camera, unless the court has expressly prohibited the publication thereof on grounds of public policy, or for reasons connected with public order or the security of the State, or on the ground that it contains information relating to a secret process, discovery or invention, or in exercise of any power vested in it.
The press reporter and the publisher of newspapers do not have any indefeasible right to put his own gloss on the statements in court by selecting stray passages out of context which might have a tendency to convey to the reader to the prejudice of a party to the proceedings a cause different from what would appear when the statement is read in its own context.Progressive Port and Dock Workers Union v. K.M. Mathew 1984 CrLJ 1061
Further, such recordings are treated as contempt in all other foreign countries too!!!
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 20 August 2010
If I am not mistaken,there is a move now to install video camera in every court in India and necessary expenditures too has been ear marked, but yet to be implemented. It is also important to note that the Courts in India have started with video conferencing with the witnesses etc; in spite of appearing personally in the court.I am of the view that it is an innovative move by the Government.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 20 August 2010
I agree with Mr.Vishal and have the following to add:- It will affect the independence of the judiciary if the proceedings are videographed. So many things happen in court. some are ignored by the magnanimity of the judges. If they are all telecast,what impression it would create in the minds of the public. That is why it is not allowed. With regard to the view of Mr.Assumi, I would like to say that the usage of video for conferencing is for totally different purpose and it cannot be used as a general reference.
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 20 August 2010
But the Court itself is an open Court save in some cases like rape, family matters like adultery etc; and rather installing video camera will make the court proceedings more transparent, and will infuse a sense of responsibility both to the Bench and the Bar. I am reproducing an article on this matters not for the sake of countering or contradicting it but for general discussions on the issues.
Videoconferencing court reporting -- how videoconferencing technology is changing the face of the judicial system.
October 03, 2006
By: Lynn Marotta
The use of videoconferencing technology is expanding outside the boardroom into newer and more innovative applications. One of the more recent trends is videoconferencing court reporting. This trend is also being termed telejustice.
In this application, videoconferencing technology is being used in the courtroom for depositions, remote testimonies during trial, as well as for legal consultations. Because videoconferencing technology is so advanced, meetings and interviews can occur as clearly and effectively as they could in person. There are real time and cost savings as well as safety benefits that can result from utilizing this videoconferencing technology in the courtroom.
A company called Polycom provides videoconferencing equipment specifically designed for the unique requirements of the courtroom setting. They market a videoconferencing system that is called Judicial VSX Collaboration System, which can facilitate a one on one videoconference or larger multi-point videoconferences as required. The Polycom system has been implemented in over 250 court reporting and law firms across the country. Let us take a closer look at some of the many benefits achieved from utilizing videoconferencing in court trials.
• Cost savings -- Videoconferencing saves a significant amount of time and money by eliminating the need to transport detainees to off-site locations. Court and legal officials can also save time traveling back and forth to the prison facility. In addition, setting up a videoconference for off site witness and expert testimonies eliminates the need to pay for travel.
• Enhances security -- With the use of videoconferencing technology, suspects do not have to leave their cell. Legal consultations, testimonies, even psychiatric evaluations can all take place via videoconference without any travel needed. This greatly improves security for everyone involved.
• Facilitates communication -- Videoconferencing makes it easier to facilitate the involvement of key witnesses and expert testimonies. Communication between the inmate and legal and judicial professionals can also easily occur via videoconference. The Polycom website lists several high profile cases including the BTK trial where witness depositions and expert testimonies were coordinated using the Polycom videoconferencing system.
The Polycom videoconferencing system comes in two formats, a rolling cart, or a wall unit. The portable units can be placed directly in the correctional facility or law firm for use whenever an inmate meeting is required. Each unit comes with everything that is necessary to conduct a videoconference.
As this videoconferencing technology catches on, it is being used for more and more applications such as; video arraignments, parole board hearings, expert witness presentations, remote testimony, and even psychiatric evaluations. With all the benefits, this videoconferencing technology can provide to the legal community, it may only be a matter of time before it becomes standard equipment in all courtrooms.
About the Author
Lynn Marotta is a successful freelance writer and contributor to Video-Conferencing-Guide.com. Your definitive guide to everything you need to know about video driven communications, including multi-view video conferencing solutions for business, broadband video phones and personal webcam chat rooms.
