We’ve heard it before, how justice delayed is justice denied, how cases meander through our judicial system for decades, if not more, before they are finally disposed of, how people have lost their faith in the judiciary. However, none of this has made a difference on the ground. Will the tears of the sitting Chief Justice be the tipping point? Will it be a wake-up call for the public and civil society to remedy the situation?

Given the glacial pace at which change, especially desirable change, happens in India, it would be naive to assume that the mere sight of Chief Justice TS Thakur being overcome by emotion while discussing the issue of effective delivery of justice, in the presence of the Prime Minister, would set the ball rolling on reducing delay. The most effective solution—filling up vacancies in courts—will not be easy. Not when the judiciary has refused to play ball with the government on the National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill that seeks to tip the balance in the appointment of senior judges in favour of the government rather than the judiciary, as at present.

So, what, if any, are the next best alternatives to expedite justice delivery? One of the easiest is video-recording of court hearings. People go to court to resolve their disputes and obtain justice. They hope the judge will hear them out carefully, understand them, piece together their tales of woe and apply the law correctly.

However, most people are unaware that Indian judicial system does not allow the correct piecing together of their story. A judge (as a presiding officer of the court) only hears a case very briefly on the first date in order to decide whether to allow it to proceed or not, as he/she has to deal with hundreds of other cases. If it appears that the case might have merit, then the judge ‘issues notice’ to the other side and proceeds to ‘give a date’ to list it a few months later. Thus begins a slow and painful journey, with many short piecemeal hearings.

Most hearings are routinely adjourned to future dates, usually with long gaps of 3-6 months between hearings. The stories remain untold and unheard even after the passage of several years, as each hearing or date is limited to a fragment of the case, and these fragments remain disjointed and seldom get connected to reveal the complete picture. Judges are hugely handicapped by the absence of a verbatim record of court hearings. They do not have the benefit of relying upon accurate and detailed transcripts of what is discussed or argued for hours together in courts. So, they rely upon their memories or sketchy notes made during the course of almost 50-100 court hearings.

Records of proceedings, therefore, end up as very short ‘one-line orders’ that say “Heard. Re-notify (re-list) on ___ date” or “Dismissed”. Others end up as long rambling orders or ‘judgments’ which are written long after the hearing, with the limited and highly inadequate aide memoires mentioned above. The result is that orders and judgments are ‘versions’ of hearings as perceived by judges, often ridden with errors and inaccuracies.

Even if the errors and inaccuracies are pointed out, judges either refuse to correct them or are barred from doing so, as in criminal matters. Parties have little choice but to live with the errors, or in the alternative, to embark upon the next arduous journey in ‘appeal’. By the stage of appeal, however, the inaccuracies become so entrenched that it becomes virtually impossible to extricate the truth. Thus, the ‘errors’ get perpetuated and finally become the ‘truth’, and justice recedes further and further away to eventually become a distant dream.

The impact of all this is a steady erosion of public confidence in the judicial system. The lengthy list of extraneous considerations that sometimes come into play in deciding matters such as “refusal to listen to a specific party and overt keenness to hear the other”, “unduly short hearings of few seconds with abrupt endings because the judge loses patience”, “wilful non-application of the law”, “wilful delays or long dates to punish the side that dares question any wrongdoing in court”, “threats of contempt or jail”, etc, are simply not recorded. Consequently, there is no chance of pinning responsibility and accountability of judges in conducting and managing court hearings. Justice is thus routinely subverted every day, over and over again.

But this need not be so. There is a very simple, swift and inexpensive solution to these problems of miscarriage of justice by ensuring a complete and verbatim record of court hearings and proceedings. This can easily be done by ‘digitally video-recording’ all court hearings and proceedings, and making these and their transcripts available to the litigant at a nominal fee. Today, sports associations record ‘high involvement’ events such as cricket matches, facilitating both their viewing as well as prompt correction of wrong decisions. Parliament records and telecasts its proceedings, making them accessible to citizens. The right to inform and be informed are both part of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, yet an exception has been made in the most fundamental dimension of our lives, justice.

Several democracies record their court proceedings through audio or video devices to improve the efficiency and accuracy in preparing court records. In Australia and New Zealand, the High Court—which is the apex court—video records and puts up transcripts of proceedings on its website. In their remaining courts, transcripts can be applied for from the concerned court subject to their rules. A study by the International Network to Promote the Rule of Law, a project of the US Institute of Peace with facilitation from other organisations, inter alia, shows that availability of court records improves public confidence in the judicial system.

Indian judiciary cannot and must not continue to remain shrouded in opacity. Justice is far too important for us to carry on fumbling in the dark without accurate records of court proceedings. There is an increasing demand from dissatisfied consumers of the justice-dispensation system to dispel opacity and ensure transparency. With accurate records, the dramatis personae in the courts would be under public scrutiny and act in a more responsible manner, as they can be held accountable if required. There would be significant reduction in judicial delays and justice would not only be done, but would also be seen to be done.

The state guarantees equality before the law and justice to all under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The introduction of digital video-recording of court proceedings would be a small step that would go a long way towards fulfilling this promise by ensuring transparency, equality and a fuller realisation of justice.

The author is a practising advocate in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, who concentrates on matters of public interest and represents vulnerable groups