Judiciary Must Embrace Technology 

A struggle is ongoing among lawyers in Delhi regarding the virtual recording of statements and evidence, especially concerning police personnel, in court. Remarkably, neither the Delhi High Court nor the Bar Council of India has clarified the factual position. The facts are that the three laws replacing the IPC, Cr. P C, and the Indian Evidence Act were passed by the Lok Sabha on 21st December 2023 and the following day by the Rajya Sabha. These laws received Presidential assent on 25th December and came into force as Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) from July 1, 2024.

The strike by lawyers in Delhi began in response to a notification issued on August 13, 2025, by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, permitting police personnel to testify via video conferencing from police stations. On September 8, 2025, Delhi Police issued a revised circular directing all police personnel to appear physically in court for deposition and evidence. Obviously, the revised circular can be effective temporarily. Section 530 of BNSS allows trial proceedings to be conducted electronically. Likewise, Section permits evidence recording via audio-video means, and Sections 265 & 266 facilitate remote deposition by prosecution and defence witnesses. Similarly, the Bhartiya Sakhya Adhiniyam also prescribes the video recording of evidence.

Therefore, Section 530 of BNSS is the crucial provision enabling electronic deposition and digital proceedings in criminal cases. This section modernises the criminal justice process by allowing the following to be conducted electronically:

- Issuance, service, and execution of summons and warrants

- Examination of complainants and witnesses via audio-video means

- Recording of evidence during inquiries and trials

- Appellate proceedings and other judicial processes

Key features include:

- Virtual trials: Courts can hold hearings remotely through secure digital platforms.

- Digital evidence: Testimonies and evidence can be recorded electronically, ensuring accuracy and reducing transcription errors.

- Remote participation: Witnesses and parties can join proceedings from different locations, enhancing accessibility.

- Efficiency enhancement: Reduces delays caused by logistics and improves coordination between law enforcement and the judiciary.

This technological introduction will be a game-changer for India's legal system. Hence, embracing technology is essential to making justice more efficient and inclusive.

What is surprising is that lawyers, regarded as the intellectual class of society, began their strike or protest more than a year after all three laws were enacted.

Another important aspect is that technology has revolutionised nearly every aspect of life. Digital payments have almost become standard. Even semi-literate or nearly illiterate Rehriwalas, Panwalas, Mochis, and tailors prefer digital payments. Almost everyone uses the internet and mobile phones. The Supreme Court’s e-filing system has become widely popular and eco-friendly. Bulky Paper books have been replaced by Surface tablets, laptops, and desktops. Libraries are being substituted by e-libraries. Post offices, once riddled with corruption, have become largely obsolete thanks to technology.

Miracles have occurred in the media domain. The day is not far off when print media will become extinct. Medical science is on the verge of a revolution driven by technology.

There is now no need for anyone to stand in queues for hours at banks, railway stations, or airline ticket counters; so why should the introduction of technology be opposed by intellectuals like lawyers? Crores of cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending in hundreds of courts nationwide, and they could be disposed of within months with modern technology. Efficient case disposal can only be achieved through technological advancement. Until fully implemented, swift case resolution remains elusive. The number of judges—from the Supreme Court down to district courts—may be significantly reduced, providing immense relief to litigants and easing the burden on the public purse. Haven't typewriters become relics of the past in just a few decades?

The Delhi High Court, the Bar Council of Delhi, and the Bar Council of India should have clarified that these laws cannot be altered or repealed by the Lieutenant Governor or any state police, but only by the Parliament of India.

Like

Comment

Share

 Peter Navarro's Misuse of 'Brahmin': A Case of Cultural Ignorance and Hostile Rhetoric

During his tenure as a trade adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, Peter Navarro made several controversial remarks, but few revealed his superficial understanding of India as clearly as his use of the word "Brahmins." In a Fox News interview defending U.S. tariffs, Navarro claimed that “Brahmins were profiteering at the expense of Indian people.” This statement was not just a political jab; it was a culturally ignorant and offensive mischaracterisation that drew widespread condemnation, including a demand for his dismissal from American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD).

Navarro's remark appears to stem from a flawed comparison with the American term ‘Boston Brahmins,’ used to describe a historical, elite class in the United States. This analogy fails in the Indian context. In India, ‘Brahmin’ refers to a large and diverse community defined by caste, not by a monolithic economic status. The reality is that the vast majority of Brahmins today belong to the middle or lower-middle class. To use their community’s name as a synonym for "exploiters" is a gross and prejudicial generalisation. Similarly, the word nerd, which was once considered pejorative, has now gained respectability for a laborious person.

The careless use of culturally specific terms is a serious misstep for any diplomat or public official. Words carry immense historical weight. Consider how terms like ‘Yankee,’ once a descriptor for Northern Americans, can now be seen as abusive, or how ‘Juggernaut,’ often used to mean an unstoppable negative force, is derived from Lord Jagannath, a deeply revered Hindu deity. While some words like ‘Pundit’ have retained their positive meaning of a knowledgeable person, the potential for misunderstanding and offence is always present. A public official operating on the world stage cannot afford such linguistic carelessness.

Unfortunately, this comment was not an isolated gaffe. It was part of a larger pattern of inflammatory rhetoric from Navarro. His shameless attempt to label the Ukraine war as the ‘Modi War’ further illustrates his tendency to use baseless accusations to deflect from U.S. policy issues. Ultimately, using the term "Brahmins" to depict exploiters was more than a simple mistake; it was indicative of a hostile and uninformed perspective on India, damaging to diplomatic discourse and reliant on perpetuating harmful stereotypes rather than engaging in good-faith policy debate.

 

Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater

Several friends have voiced concerns about my recent post advocating for the integration of technology into the justice system. Their primary worry is that increased reliance on digital tools might embolden law enforcement to act without sufficient oversight, potentially worsening the handling of criminal cases.

But let’s take a step back. Even with traditional methods—where evidence is physically presented—the conviction rate remains below 50%. It’s difficult to argue that introducing technology would somehow erode this further. In fact, the opposite may be true.

At the heart of criminal law lies a fundamental principle: no innocent person should be punished, even if that means some guilty individuals go free. This principle should guide our approach to innovation. Yes, technology has its flaws. But rejecting it outright because of imperfections ignores its potential to streamline procedures, enhance transparency, and reduce opportunities for misuse.

Rather than abandoning progress, we should focus on refining it. With thoughtful implementation and proper safeguards, technology can become a powerful ally in the pursuit of justice—not a threat to it.

As the old saying goes, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 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.

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity.

 Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public.

In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right available to every citizen, regardless of their level of education or status.

In this context, a reference can be made to Phoolan Devi, known as the bandit queen, who later became a member of Parliament. She applied to publish a newspaper from her native district of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh. The District Magistrate refused to forward her application to the Registrar of Newspapers of India on the grounds of her illiteracy. The matter escalated to the appellate authority, the Press Council of India. The then-Chairman, Justice P. B. Sawant, summoned the District Magistrate, who appeared along with an Advocate, stating how an illiterate person could serve as the printer, publisher, and editor of a newspaper. Justice Sawant asked whether it was expected that an editor should know everything if a newspaper carried diverse items such as business, sports, politics, crime, and education. The District Magistrate responded that this could be handled by other journalists employed by the newspaper, to which Justice Sawant pointed out that, similarly, Phoolan Devi could employ journalists for her publication. Ultimately, she obtained the necessary permissions to launch the newspaper. This exemplifies the beauty of the Indian Constitution.

Therefore, those demanding that the media be designated as the fourth estate are oblivious to the fact that such inclusion in the fundamental rights ensures full freedom for every journalist. Thus, the demand to establish it as a fourth pillar is not only absurd but impossible, as the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered, as decided by the Supreme Court in the Keshavanand Bharti case.

 

PRESS COUNCIL MUST BE DISBANDED FOR CONSTITUTING A MEDIA COUNCIL

 

The Press Council of India is a wholly redundant body. It is akin to a crowing hen, which is neither fit for God nor men and becomes a burden on the exchequer. It allows for self-regulation, which is often disregarded rather than adhered to. Section 14 of the Press Council Act stipulates three types of ludicrous punishments. The first is a warning; the second is a reprimand/admonishment, and the third is censure after conducting an inquiry. There is practically no material difference among all three so-called punishments.

Additionally, the Council can require newspapers to publish details of inquiries against them if it deems it necessary for the public interest. However, it cannot investigate matters that are already pending in a court of law, and its decisions cannot be challenged in court. The PCI primarily functions as a moral watchdog, ensuring that the press operates with integrity and accountability. It has no jurisdiction over the electronic or internet media.

When the Press Council was enacted on the recommendations of the first Press Commission, which was headed by Justice GS Rajyadhyaksha, who was then a judge of the Bombay High Court. The First Press Commission of India was appointed in September 1952 and submitted its report in 1954, and in the next year, i.e. 1955, the Working Journalist Act was enacted.

Other Members of the First Press Commission

The other members of the Commission included Dr. C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar, a distinguished lawyer, administrator, and politician, who played a significant role in the Madras Presidency and Travancore, serving as the Dewan of Travancore from 1936 to 1947. Acharya Narendra Dev, an eminent academician and a socialist leader, who had also served as the Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University and the Lucknow University. Dr. Zakir Hussain, an academician and later the President of India, Dr VKRV Rao, who was the founder of the Delhi School of Economics and subsequently became a Central Minister, P. H. Patwardhan, a key leader in the Marathwada Liberation Movement, which played a crucial role in the integration of the region into India after independence. Shri Patwardhan also struggled against the Nizam of Hyderabad, which led to its annexation in 1948, Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, a journalist, a veteran freedom fighter, and a well-known politician, later became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Jaipal Singh Munda was an influential Indian politician, a writer, and sportsman, a member of the Constituent Assembly of India who passionately advocated for the rights of tribal communities. He also captained the Indian hockey team to its first-ever Olympic gold medal in 1928. J. Natarajan, known for his work on the history of Indian journalism, was also a member of the first Press Commission. The other two members were A.R. Bhat, an academician and a scientist, and M. Chelapathi Rau, an eminent journalist and the then Editor of the National Herald. The Commission made several significant recommendations that laid the groundwork for the regulation and development of the press in independent India.

Establishment of a Press Council was a crucial recommendation of the First Press Commission

The Commission suggested instituting a statutory Press Council as a quasi-judicial body to safeguard the freedom of the press, maintain and enhance journalistic standards, and formulate a professional code of conduct. The Press Council of India was subsequently established in 1966 based on this recommendation, but unfortunately, it failed to achieve its objectives.

Appointment of a Registrar of Newspapers for India

The Commission recommended the creation of a Registrar of Newspapers to maintain detailed records of newspapers and periodicals, verify circulation claims, and track ownership patterns. The RNI was established in 1956 and has since outlived its utility. Introduction of a Price-Page Schedule, which is now meaningless in the current digital media landscape, was also recommended by it.

Enactment of the Working Journalist Act

The Commission recommended measures to ensure fair wages and better working conditions for journalists, leading to the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Services) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955. Given the unprecedented growth of electronic and internet media, print media has been relegated to an insignificant position. Furthermore, it has now been subsumed in the four labour codes.

Press Council of India Needs to be Disbanded

Therefore, the very establishment of the Press Council of India was meaningless and questionable from the very beginning. However, its worthlessness has now accentuated to an extent that it needs to be disbanded immediately, and a Media Council representative in character and consisting of eminent journalists, jurists, trade unionists, conscientious public figures, and parliamentarians, should be enacted and constituted to serve as the watchdog of the media in the truest sense of the term.

(The writer has served as a member of the Press Council of India for two terms, six years, in the early nineties)