Embracing Technology in Justice:  Online Hearings and Evidence Recording Deserve Support

With the enactment of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in 2023, India has taken a decisive step toward modernizing its criminal justice system. Replacing the outdated Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the BNSS introduces provisions that embrace digital tools to streamline legal processes and reduce unnecessary burdens on all stakeholders.

Yet, it is perplexing that a section of the legal fraternity in Delhi opposes the recent notification issuEmbracing Technology in Justice:  Online Hearings and Evidence Recording Deserve Supported by the Lieutenant Governor, which permits police personnel to record evidence and statements from designated locations within their respective police stations. This move aligns perfectly with the spirit and letter of the BNSS, which applies uniformly across the country—not just to Delhi.

Let us examine key provisions of the BNSS that underscore the legitimacy and utility of digital procedures:

• Section 183(1): Magistrates may record confessions or statements via audio-video electronic means, in the presence of the accused’s advocate.
• Section 176: In rape cases, victims may give their statements at a location of their choice, including their residence, using audio-video means—even mobile phones.
• Section 180(3): Police officers are empowered to record witness statements electronically, ensuring each record is accurate and distinct.
• Section 530: Trials, inquiries, and appellate proceedings may be conducted through electronic communication or audio-video platforms.

In an era where digital transformation is reshaping every sector—from education to governance—it is counterproductive to resist similar progress in the judiciary. The insistence on physical hearings and manual recording of evidence not only consumes valuable time and resources but also causes undue inconvenience to witnesses, especially police personnel who are often pulled away from critical duties.

What is even more surprising is the support extended by the Bar Associations of the High Court and the Supreme Court to the striking advocates. Rather than opposing technological integration, these bodies should champion it, guiding the legal community toward a more efficient, accessible, and transparent system.

The hybrid model of court functioning—combining physical and digital modes—is not a compromise; it is an evolution. It respects tradition while embracing innovation. Intellectuals and legal professionals alike must recognise their role in facilitating this transition, not obstructing it.

India’s justice system must march forward with the times. The tools are here. The law supports them. It’s time the mindset followed suit.

 

Beyond the Degree: Why Leadership Isn't Defined by Formal Qualifications

  

 

The recent political uproar surrounding the Prime Minister's educational degree is a misguided distraction that amounts to little more than foolishness. This emphasis on academic credentials over proven ability reveals a superficial understanding of what truly qualifies someone for high office.

This isn't a new political tactic. Decades ago, when Rajiv Gandhi was poised to become Prime Minister, the formidable Sharad Pawar of Maharashtra was also a contender. V. N. Gadgil, then a General Secretary of the AICC, tried to dismiss Pawar’s candidacy by questioning his proficiency in English. Unfazed, Mr. Pawar responded to journalists that if English proficiency was the main requirement, then a university professor would be the most logical choice for Prime Minister.

Pawar’s clever and sharp reply remains relevant today. It is the perfect rebuttal to the modern antics of demanding academic certificates from elected leaders. To do so is to ignore the democratic mandate of millions who elected them.

History is full of influential Indian leaders whose impact far exceeded their formal education. The first Education Minister of India, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, had no formal education or degree. If a degree were the ultimate criterion, many stalwarts would have been disqualified. K. Kamaraj and M. Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu were towering figures despite lacking extensive formal schooling. Similarly, leaders like Chaudhari Devi Lal, Om Prakash Chautala, and Rabri Devi held high office without academic accolades, and rightly so. Today, Tejaswi Yadav, who did not complete high school, is a significant political force in Bihar. Their careers prove that political skill is not born in a classroom.

Ultimately, a leader is judged by their actions and abilities. The Prime Minister's qualifications are evident in his performance. His skill as an orator, his capacity to generate and implement ideas, and his ability to turn complex concepts into tangible policies are hallmarks of a truly qualified leader.

Therefore, those who obsess over a paper degree show a deep ignorance of history and leadership. In their attempt to undermine a political opponent, they only end up making themselves look foolish in the court of public opinion.