Tamil Nadu, Puducherry courts to record evidence through video conference facility

A notification issued in the Tamil Nadu Gazette said, “An over-riding factor is that the use of video conferencing in any particular case must be consistent with furthering the interest of justice and should cause minimal disadvantage to the parties.”

As per Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules 2018–which extends to the whole of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry–wherever possible, proceedings by way of video conference shall be conducted as judicial proceedings and the same courtesies and protocols shall be observed and all relevant statutory provisions applicable to judicial proceedings including the provisions of the Information of Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply to the recording of evidence through video conference.

One of the general rules stated that video conferencing facilities can be used in all matters including remands, bail applications and in civil and criminal trials, where a witness is located interstate or overseas. However, these rules will not apply to the proceedings under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which deals with recording of confessions and statements by either a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate, the notification said.

The rules notified under various heads also stated that in criminal cases, the expenses of the video conference facility including expenses of preparing soft copies and certified copies shall be borne by the party that the court directs. In civil cases, as a general rule, the party making the request for recording evidence through video conference shall bear the expenses and in other cases, the court may make an order on expenses as it considers appropriate taking to account rules regarding payment of expenses to the complainant and witnesses as may be prevalent from time to time.

One of the rules held that third parties may be allowed to be present during video conferencing subject to orders to the contrary, if any, by the court.

Further, noting that ultimately it is for the court to decide whether evidence should be recorded by video conferencing, the notification said, “Even with the advancement of technology, there occurs delay of millisecond between video picture seen and sounds being heard. Such time gap difference must be taken note of, to avoid one participant talking over another.”