Type: op-ed snap

Context

By order dated May 11, 2022, a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India, has directed that the petitions challenging the Section 124A be listed for final determination in the third week of July 2022; and that in the meantime suspend the use of Section 124A IPC.

Historical background of Section 124A

• With effect from 1870, (as amended in 1955), Section 124A of the Penal Code read:

“Whoever by words, spoken or written, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection, towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life…”.

• “Sedition” is the vaguest of all offences known to the criminal law.
•  In colonial times, it was defined expansively in order to uphold the majesty of British power in India.
• Before 1950, there were several Court decisions in operation on Section 124A; amongst them was Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case (1897).
• Absence of affection: In Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s case the Privy Council declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming that “disaffection” only meant “absence of affection in any degree towards the British rule or its administration or representatives”, and that exciting of mutiny or rebellion or actual disturbance of any sort was “absolutely immaterial”.
• With the establishment of a Federal Court by the Government of India Act, 1935, in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor the Federal Court held that if the language of Section 124A were to be read literally “it would make a surprising number of persons in India guilty of sedition and that no one, however, supposes that it is to be read in this literal sense”
• However, in 1947 it was precisely in this literal sense that the interpretation of Section 124A was reiterated by a Bench of five judges of the Privy Council (AIR 1947 P.C. 82) in which it was declared that: “If the Federal Court had given their attention to Tilak’s case (1897) they should have recognised it as an authority… by which they were bound”.
• With the advent of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950, this interpretation of Section 124A became “the law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution”.

Section 124A after 1950

• Article 372: It stated that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority.
• Protected due to Article 19(2): In 1962, in criminal appeals arising from the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that though Section 124A “clearly violated” the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a), it was not unconstitutional only because it was protected from challenge by the words “in the interests of public order” in Article 19(2).

Conclusion

This background has now become pertinent and relevant, because in a fresh batch of writ petitions filed in 2021, the constitutionality of Section 124A (IPC) has been once again challenged in the Supreme Court.

UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

The Indian judiciary has increasingly started using technology and the change is reflected in the legal profession in general as well.

Increasing use of digital technology in the judiciary

• With the digitisation of judicial records and the establishment of e-courts, significant developments had taken place in 2020.
• Use of technology to better utilise potential: It is imperative that the use of digital technology be discussed to better utilise its potential, particularly in terms of digitisation of court records, e-filing of cases and their virtual hearing, live streaming of court proceedings.

Background

• In India, e-governance in the field of administration of justice began in the late 1990s, but it accelerated after the enactment of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
• In the year of 2006, e-courts were launched as a part of the National e-Governance Plan (NEGP).

Digitisation of case files

• When he was the Chief Justice of Allahabad HC, Justice D Y Chandrachud had conceptualised and initiated the project to digitise approximately one crore case files in one year.
• Saving of space and preservation of old documents: This was necessary as not only was a large space required to store so many files, it was also becoming difficult to manually preserve the decades-old documents.
• Traceability: Another purpose was to ensure that these files are traceable electronically as and when required.
• It has also been observed that cases are adjourned simply because affidavits filed several years ago were not restored with the record or were not traceable.
• Once the documents are digitised and e-filed by counsels, at least the cases would not get adjourned by the courts on this account.
• Reducing the risk of missing court records: In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abhay Raj Singh, it was held by the Supreme Court that if court records go missing and re-construction is not possible, the courts are bound to set aside the conviction.
• Saving of time: With digitisation, it will take much less time for the lower courts to transmit the records as and when called for.
• The lawyers benefit because they or their staff are no longer required to visit the reporting sections or other sections of the court to know about the status of their cases.
• This has been sought to be implemented by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court by issuing directions to ensure that e-filing of cases/petitions by state governments in all matters be made mandatory from January 1, 2022.

Scope for virtual hearing in certain cases

• Cases related to matrimonial issues and domestic violence bounced cheques, motor accident compensation referred to mediation centres and lok adalats could be included in the list of cases fit for disposal through the virtual hearing.
• The hearing of matrimonial cases through video-conferencing was approved by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Veni Nagam v Harish Nagam (2017).
• The direction was short-lived and a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Santhini v Vijaya Venkatesh (2018) referred the matter for reconsideration before a larger bench.
• Virtual hearings cannot be a substitute for physical court hearings in all cases.
• However, in appropriate cases and certain categories of cases as identified by the court administration in consultation with the members of the Bar, virtual hearing should be made mandatory.

Live streaming of cases

• In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed the live-streaming of cases of constitutional and national importance on the basis of the judgment in Swapnil Tripathi.
• Step towards transparency: The livestreaming of court proceedings is a step towards ensuring transparency and openness.
• While several reservations were expressed against it, the Gujarat HC in July 2021 became the first court in the country to livestream its proceedings.
• Its example was followed by other HCs like Karnataka, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Patna.

Challenges

• Internet connectivity issues and the need for a well-equipped space where lawyers can conduct their cases are some of the major problems requiring attention.
• Political will and the support of judges and lawyers are also necessary.
• Awareness and training: Judges, court staff and lawyers are not well-versed with digital technology and its benefits.
• The need of the hour is for them to be made aware of these and receive adequate training.

Conclusion

Adoption of technology will bring drastic changes in the field of law and will transform the Court system.

Context

The Supreme Court order of May 20, transferring the suit on the Gyanvapi Masjid dispute from the civil judge (senior division) Varanasi to the district judge casts aspersion, though unintended, on the competence of civil judges in general.

Background

• The matter had reached the Supreme Court on a petition filed by the Mosque Management Committee, which challenged the civil judge’s orders.
• The order permitted inspection, survey, and videography of the mosque’s complex to collect evidence about the alleged existence of idols of Hindu deities inside the mosque, which is adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple.
• The Mosque Management Committee had filed an application before the civil judge seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 prohibits individuals and groups of people from converting, in full or in part, a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination, or even a different segment of the same religious denomination.
• It was argued before the SC that given the said Act, the suit was liable to be rejected at the threshold as the civil judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the same, much less to pass the aforesaid interim orders.
• The SC has not found any fault with the order of the civil judge, though there is also a view that it was mandatory on the part of the civil judge to have first passed an order on whether he had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
• However, it appears that in the SC’s view, this was not a serious infraction.
• So, in a way, the SC has affirmed the orders of the civil judge.
• The civil court had territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
• The question that arises is: Why has the Supreme Court transferred the matter to the court of the district judge?

Issues with the SC transferring the case to the district judge

• The SC has seemingly declared civil judges to be not competent to decide a matter alleged to be complex.
• When the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court Rules and Orders invest a civil judge with jurisdiction, why take it away merely on the plea that the matter is complex?
• Unhealthy precedent: Fransfer of the case to the district judge has set an unhealthy precedent and will have a demoralising effect on the subordinate judiciary.
• In the recent past, many lower-level judicial officers have passed outstanding orders in matters concerning the liberties of the citizens, which are under threat as never before.
• The subordinate judiciary provides the foundation of our judicial system.

Conclusion

Supreme Court order inadvertently casts aspersions on competence of subordinate judiciary. District court should not be weighed down by SC observation.

UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)