Madhya Pradesh High Court: Directives issued for transferring COVID infected patients to jail with better treatment facilities via video-conferencing

Must Read

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

Follow us

In the case of Salim Khan vs. The State of M.P., the four detainees against whom provisions of National Security Act have been imposed were Salim, Javed, Samir and Imran, all residents of Indore.

The four detainees, against whom provisions of National Security Act have been imposed, are all residents of Indore. Javed and Salim have been shifted to Jabalpur Central Jail and, Sameer and Imran both have been sent to Satna Central Jail. Javed, Sameer and Imran have tested positive for COVID-19 disease. It was pleaded before the court that these detainees be shifted to Indore Central Jail because of better medical facilities available at Indore.

The family members of the 4 prisoners had all filed writ petitions together, seeking to transfer the detainees – Imran, Sameer, Salim and Javed to Indore Central Jail. The significance of this case was that this discussion was to be conjointly done through videoconferencing in the presence of the family members. Shri Purushendra Kaurav, the State’s counsel was also present through video conferencing.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State’s advocate has submitted that the entire staff which has transported the detainees initially to Jabalpur and Satna and the staff which is going to transport them back to Bhopal or to Indore, shall also be tested for infection and shall also be kept under quarantine.

Understanding the necessity of the situation as three of them have been tested positive and as there are dedicated hospitals at Indore and Bhopal, the State Government was directed to ensure that all four detainees be shifted immediately to Bhopal where there is a dedicated hospital, ie., the Government Medical College Hospital which has been now been designated exclusively to deal with COVID patients.

They were also to be transported in safe ambulances by maintaining proper distances between them and the staff accompanying them shall also be kept under quarantine and shall be extended all possible facilities of check-up and other requirements as may be needed from time to time.

 Court’s Analysis

 It was made clear that as three of them have tested positive, the jail staff at Jabalpur and Satna with whom they have interacted or with whom they were having any contact be also tested.

In the future, the State Government will not transfer the prisoners to other Districts without the leave of this court because of the position at Indore where the largest number of COVID cases have been reported in Madhya Pradesh.

There are certain districts where there are no patients and therefore, in case any necessity arises in future for transfer of any prisoner the State Government shall obtain the leave of this Court. A detailed reply was also to be filed within 4 weeks.

National Practices For Video-Conferencing

In India, courts in the last decade have been proactive in embracing advancement in technology. One such pioneering step is the use of video conferencing for the recording of evidence. In the Indian legal system, the evidence is collected under the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In criminal proceedings, Subsections 230-234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) 1973 specify the procedure of collecting evidence and the Court has the power to compel the witness to appear before it to give evidence.

In civil matters, the witnesses are summoned to appear before the court and adduce evidence under the provisions of Section 30, Order XVI and Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908. Indian statutes do not have specific provisions for recording evidence via video conference and it is the Indian judiciary that has, through various landmark decisions, laid down the framework and parameters for the use of video conferencing facilities to record evidence.

Mindful of the circumstances in which the physical presence of a person cannot be obtained, Indian courts have held that the physical presence of a person can be dispensed with. In several cases, such as Amitabh Bagchi v Ena Bagchi [2005] it was held that ‘presence’ does not necessarily mean actual physical presence in the court. By the amendment in the Evidence Act and insertion of Subsections 65A and 65B, a special provision as to evidence relating to electronic record and admissibility of electronic records had been introduced. Courts have interpreted this provision to include video conferencing. Video conferencing has been used in several cases where the witness has been unable to attend the court proceedings, for instance, in Alcatel India Ltd v Koshika Telecom Ltd & Ors. [2004] the Court allowed the witness to give evidence through video conferencing, as the witness was unhealthy.

In Amitabh Bagchi, the High Court of Calcutta opined that a practical outlook ought to be taken by a court in allowing electronic video conferencing as it is a cost-effective facility and avoids the delay of justice. The courts have on several occasions also resorted to using this technology, based on compelling facts and circumstances. Example, the examination of a victim who had been sexually exploited and/or was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder was allowed to be done via video conferencing.

The facility has also been used by the subordinate courts, where the judicial officer needs to record evidence of under-trial prisoners for security reasons. In the matter of Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd v MV ‘Sea Success I’ & Anr. [2005], the Bombay High Court allowed the plea of the plaintiff to depose using video conferencing, as the witness was staying in the UK with her two minor children and was unable to come to India. In the case of Bodala Murali Krishna v Smt Badola Prathima [2007], the Andhra Pradesh High Court similarly allowed disposition of a USA resident witness via video conferencing. The Court was of the view that there should not be any plausible objection for resorting to video conferencing in civil cases as long as the necessary facilities along with assured accuracy co-exist.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Dr Kunal Saha v Dr Sukumar Mukherjee [2011] (medical negligence case), went a step further and ordered the recording of testimonies and cross-examination of the foreign expert witnesses through internet conferencing instead of video conferencing. Administrative steps have been taken by the Indian Supreme Court since early March 2020 and followed by the High Courts and the lower courts, show how proactive the court administration has been. By only allowing urgent matters to be listed when the Coronavirus concerns first started to be raised while following social distance norms and staggered timings, to immediately enabling hearings through video-conference after stricter government restrictions were brought in after March 23 on to the movement of persons, the Court has adapted itself to the new norm.

As the present COVID situation didn’t get better by 13th April 2020, then one must consider whether the Court should allow online hearings through video-conference for certain regular cases. Those could be hearings that are time-bound and preceded by written submissions and set out within strict time-slots so that on its conclusion and a suitable gap, the next hearing can commence. An advantage is that judges of the bench may sit at different locations of their choosing and conduct the hearings while hearing the lawyers and litigants sitting at a place of their choosing. None of these places can be/need to be either the traditional courtrooms or even a part of the court precincts.

Court’s Order

This court (Justice S.C. Sharma and Justice S. Shukla) passed this order through video conferencing, Shri Kuldeep Singh, Chief Principal System Analyst, High Court of M.P. Jabalpur who was in touch with the Supreme Court shall ensure that the order passed by this court is uploaded in the website and that a physical copy of the order passed by this court would be kept in the file for future reference.

It was clarified that Sameer and Imran are at Satna and both of them have detected positive and Salim and Javed who are at Jabalpur and out of them Javed were detected positive. As all of them were together for a considerable time, Salim would also be quarantined and subjected to retest at Bhopal.

It is made clear that this order is being passed under extraordinary circumstances and such order would not be liable to be objectively followed in future in respect of other detainees in the State. The State was also directed to strictly follow the protocol formulated by ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) for the purpose.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -