Only Increased Use of Technology can Prevent Rohini Court Type of Crimes

                                                                                      Parmanand Pandey

The gruesome shootout at Rohini court yesterday was shocking, without doubt, but not surprising. It has not happened for the first time, such incidents have taken place many times in many countries, but the moot question is that despite the incredible march of technology, why is it not being used to prevent such incidents from taking place? Why, at all, the dreaded criminals and gangsters are brought to the court rooms causing huge inconvenience to the public? The governments have to incur a lot of expenses in transporting the hardened criminals from jails to courtrooms and back to their cells. Nowadays, it can very easily be done by video conferencing. The increased use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can reduce the number of cases by at least 70 per cent. A large number of flimsy and frivolous cases are filed every day and they can be filtered by the AI. This will be saving the expenses of the government and the public both from unnecessary botheration. The number of courtrooms and the judges will be considerably reduced. The courtrooms, which will become surplus, can be used for some other purposes. The second thing that can be done is to bring about change in the mindset of the judges and the advocates. Why should they not be properly screened and frisked before entering the court premises? It is often seen advocates quarrelling with the security staff. They flaunt and throw around their weight of being in the robes. This must be done away with, and everyone must be subjected to strict checking. For this purpose, high-quality sensory machines can be installed, which can very easily detect the arms that might be carried under the coats and gowns of the lawyers. The need is to get the solution of the problem and not to go on the strike at the drop of the hat. The live streaming of the courtroom proceedings is long overdue. But why this is not being done in the right spirit beggars all logic. Live- streaming will certainly remove the lethargy of the judges and the advocates. The Bar Council and the Bar Associations will have to play the pivotal role in complete overhauling of the court proceedings. Cosmetic changes here and there will be of no use. The days are over when the third-rate judicial system was silently suffered. The new generation is fed up with the sleepy judges, cunning lawyers and go-getting touts.

SC gets tough for not appearing in proper dress

Hearing of cases in courts in Virtual mode is a blessing, particularly for the senior advocates, because they can manage their cases from the cosy comforts of their houses or offices. However, sometimes, they also get a snub from the courts for not adhering to the dress code or for not following the basic protocols of the courts. Some of the advocates have even been seen sipping tea while arguing their cases, which is unthinkable in the physical mode. This happened today with Senior Counsel KTS Tulsi, who, by the way, is also a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) got a snub by the bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose. As far as the dress code is concerned, it is an altogether different issue and Shri Tulsi being a lawmaker and interpreter of the law can definitely take a stand to get it changed.

When Shri Tulsi appeared today in Virtual Court number 9 of the SC without wearing a neckband and a black coat, Justice Saran asked him: Are you appearing as an Advocate? If you are appearing as an Advocate, why are you not in the proper dress? Profusely apologising to the Court, Shri Tulsi, sought a minute's time from the court to wear the coat and band. In the meantime, the court took up the next matter, which did not take more than two minutes. By that time Shri Tulsi was ready in the proper dress to argue the case.

Hearings in virtual modes have received mixed reactions from the Bench and the Bar as well. It is, without doubt, a time-saving, money-saving, and pollution protecting mode. On average, an advocate has to waste nearly two hours of time commuting from home to the court and back from the court to the home, if the court works in physical mode. The money spent on conveyance and petrol fuel is also saved in virtual modes and in the process, the congestion on the roads and atmospheric pollution is reduced.

It has many demerits also. For example, it does not give the feel of the courts. One can only see either the Bench or one or two more advocates because the audio and video of advocates are kept disabled by the host. One cannot have the benefit of hearing the arguments of other advocates in the absence of enabling links. Our Bars are bereft of innovative ideas, so nothing better be expected from them.

This can certainly be adequately addressed if the live streaming of all courts is started. Live streaming will be immensely helpful in making the judges and lawyers more responsible. At present, it is found that in most of the courts, judges sit and leave the courtrooms as their whims and fancies. The Supreme Court is, of course, an exception, where the judges are mostly very punctual. The virtual mode has deprived the opportunity of socialisation among advocates and clients. Thrills of gossips in the canteens and the search for relevant materials in the libraries are felt like pangs.

The other difficulty relates to technology because, in many places, the internet is found to be very erratic. If teething troubles are got over, the technology can give optimum benefits. The proper use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will not only reduce the burden of the courts but will also go a long way in filtering the frivolous cases, which consume a lot of judicial time of the courts.

 Laudable Supertech Judgement

Parmanand Pandey

 The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Supertech case of NOIDA will be long remembered and it must be strictly executed. The judgment has sent a highly positive message across the country that ‘high and mighty'  cannot take the law into their own hands. Unfortunately, this perception has gained momentum, particularly after the Union Carbide case that powerful persons have very safe escape routes, and the law cannot touch them. This is the reason that they flout the rules and the laws with gay abandon. The stinging comment of the Supreme Court on the corruption of officials must wake up the higher authorities to take stringent action against those, who allowed the Supertech to go like an untamed and unfettered bull. To mete out exemplary punishment to those reeking with corruption from their noses, eyes, and ears will serve the ends of complete justice.

 The justice, as they say, must be reformative and deterrent. In a democratic society like ours, retributive justice has no place. Of late. The cynicism has also grown among people about the judiciary. The conduct of the shady judges has been largely responsible for the unsavoury image of the judiciary. That is why, it is said that judges should be like Caesar’s wife, beyond any reproach.

  There is not even a shred of doubt that without the complicity of the officials, it is not possible to get any illegal construction done. Large-scale illegal constructions in any city bear the testimony of the huge corruption among officials. Almost all illegal constructions in Delhi scream about the neck-deep corruption prevailing in the DDA. Corrupt officials enjoy the full support of corrupt politicians for mutual benefits. The unplanned growth in Delhi could not have been possible without the complicity of the DDA, MCD and the Police. If exemplary punishments were given to them, Delhi would have been the ideal place.

To uphold the majesty of justice, it is all the more necessary to take action against NOIDA officials, and only then the maxim that ‘howsoever high one may be, the law is above them’ will have dignity and grace. Among all three organs of the State- the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, it is the judiciary that enjoys the highest respect and trust of the people. The Legislature and the Executive have lost much of their sheen.

It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Judiciary is to ensure that the powerful persons are not allowed to hold the common people to ransom as per their whims and fancies. This decision of the Supreme Court will, without doubt, instil a new sense of confidence in the public.

 

ReplyForward