Immediately start video-recording of all High Court
proceedings, and providing of verbatim transcripts of what is
argued in Court, just like in any other civilized, progressive
coun
Deepak Khosla New Delhi, India
VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the
government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Said Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States
(1801–1809).
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the
government fears the people, there is liberty. But when the people
distrust their own Courts, sown are the seeds of corruption, leading
to anarchy and rebellion.”
Said Deepak Khosla, a mere advocate.
High Courts in India are wont to pound their chests and point out
the existence of Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, which says
that all High Courts are "Courts of Record". And they cite this article
to then draw mystical powers in the nature of "inherent powers"
which allegedly exist in all “Courts of Record”. And then proceed to
harshly intimidate persons with such inherent powers allegedly
extant in “Courts of Record”, such as those of contempt, powers
which – according to them – even transcend the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
Yet, there is no "record" of what is argued in Indian "Courts of
Record".
A conundrum ? Or a deliberate preservation of a "power play" ?
Based on a denial of accountability, perhaps ?
As a gesture of appeasement, the higher Judiciary in India (read,
High Courts and the Supreme Court of India) offer to allow
recording of their lower court's proceedings. See this :
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-for-judiciary-s-
view-on-recording-of-court-proceedings/article1-1148544.aspx.
But why not their own Courts ?
The political class go along with this sop in the form of a quid-pro-
quo ; meaning, don't harass us with adverse judgements that strike
down our power-perpetuation and/or corrupt acts, or we will use the
legislative process and push video cameras into your courts to make
you accountable to the people as well.
The end sufferer of this perennial power-dance ? You and me.
The very legislative body that frames and passes law in India (i.e.
the Lok Sabha, which is the 'House of the People') have been
televising their own Parliamentary proceedings for almost a decade
now. In other words, the body that has framed the Contempt of
Courts Act for the Courts does not deem it contemptuous if its own
proceedings are known to the public, and they are held accountable
for their conduct. The Supreme Court of UK, since inception in
London in 2011, has started televising its court proceedings. The
High Courts of UK also have followed suit as of October 30th, 2013
this year. See this link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24744684.
So why are High Court judges in India reluctant to allow the camera
into their court-rooms, especially when this would provide
incontrovertible-evidence of what goes on inside ? What are they
shying away from ? Accountability ?
Country after country has found that entry of the video camera into
the courtroom renders transparency into what is most certainly an
opaque process even in the eyes of the direct participants i.e. the
lawyers/litigants who are party to any particular case.
Even Nigeria, Zambia and Sierra Leone have started recording of
their court's proceedings. But not India….the Wise man of the East.
India is home to almost 20% of the world's population, whose fate
is, in effect, governed by around 850 High Court Judges. And it is a
democracy, not an autocracy, much less a monarchy. If this be so,
will the 850 persons who hold others (over a billion) accountable to
the law not agree to allow themselves to be held accountable to the
same laws ?
Come....change this....for your sake....for your children's
sakes...and for the sake of the children of the same Judges who
resist entry of the camera in their courts while they hold the post,
but who would, themselves, be the first person to demand entry of
the camera into the court, but after their tenure is over.
proceedings, and providing of verbatim transcripts of what is
argued in Court, just like in any other civilized, progressive
coun
Deepak Khosla New Delhi, India
VIDEO RECORDING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the
government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Said Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States
(1801–1809).
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the
government fears the people, there is liberty. But when the people
distrust their own Courts, sown are the seeds of corruption, leading
to anarchy and rebellion.”
Said Deepak Khosla, a mere advocate.
High Courts in India are wont to pound their chests and point out
the existence of Article 215 of the Indian Constitution, which says
that all High Courts are "Courts of Record". And they cite this article
to then draw mystical powers in the nature of "inherent powers"
which allegedly exist in all “Courts of Record”. And then proceed to
harshly intimidate persons with such inherent powers allegedly
extant in “Courts of Record”, such as those of contempt, powers
which – according to them – even transcend the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
Yet, there is no "record" of what is argued in Indian "Courts of
Record".
A conundrum ? Or a deliberate preservation of a "power play" ?
Based on a denial of accountability, perhaps ?
As a gesture of appeasement, the higher Judiciary in India (read,
High Courts and the Supreme Court of India) offer to allow
recording of their lower court's proceedings. See this :
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/govt-for-judiciary-s-
view-on-recording-of-court-proceedings/article1-1148544.aspx.
But why not their own Courts ?
The political class go along with this sop in the form of a quid-pro-
quo ; meaning, don't harass us with adverse judgements that strike
down our power-perpetuation and/or corrupt acts, or we will use the
legislative process and push video cameras into your courts to make
you accountable to the people as well.
The end sufferer of this perennial power-dance ? You and me.
The very legislative body that frames and passes law in India (i.e.
the Lok Sabha, which is the 'House of the People') have been
televising their own Parliamentary proceedings for almost a decade
now. In other words, the body that has framed the Contempt of
Courts Act for the Courts does not deem it contemptuous if its own
proceedings are known to the public, and they are held accountable
for their conduct. The Supreme Court of UK, since inception in
London in 2011, has started televising its court proceedings. The
High Courts of UK also have followed suit as of October 30th, 2013
this year. See this link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24744684.
So why are High Court judges in India reluctant to allow the camera
into their court-rooms, especially when this would provide
incontrovertible-evidence of what goes on inside ? What are they
shying away from ? Accountability ?
Country after country has found that entry of the video camera into
the courtroom renders transparency into what is most certainly an
opaque process even in the eyes of the direct participants i.e. the
lawyers/litigants who are party to any particular case.
Even Nigeria, Zambia and Sierra Leone have started recording of
their court's proceedings. But not India….the Wise man of the East.
India is home to almost 20% of the world's population, whose fate
is, in effect, governed by around 850 High Court Judges. And it is a
democracy, not an autocracy, much less a monarchy. If this be so,
will the 850 persons who hold others (over a billion) accountable to
the law not agree to allow themselves to be held accountable to the
same laws ?
Come....change this....for your sake....for your children's
sakes...and for the sake of the children of the same Judges who
resist entry of the camera in their courts while they hold the post,
but who would, themselves, be the first person to demand entry of
the camera into the court, but after their tenure is over.
No comments:
Post a Comment