Naavi has been a long time advocate of the use of electronic means of communication in Judicial matters. Whenever we hear that accused escapes while in transit to a Court or see the enormous police force deployment just to bring in convicts and under trials to the Court and escorting them back again, we have regretted the inefficient systems that drains out the resources of the Government and come back to haunt us in the form of increase in taxes.
For various compulsions such as the need to make a progress in the 26/11 trials and the inability to get David Coleman Headley, a key accused to be brought physically to the Indian Courts, his deposition as an approver was obtained by the Mumbai Sessions Court through a video conference. Now this video evidence will be a key to further proceedings in India and discussions in international counter terrorism circles.
Though this is not the first time, an Indian Court has used “Video Conference” to interact with the accused or the witnesses, this will be the most significant and noticed incidence of the use of Video Conference in judicial proceedings in India.
The current proceedings took place directly in the presence of the Judicial authority at one end while at the other end of the Video conference, a foreign prison agency was present. At this point of time, we are not aware what procedures the Court used to enable the evidence meet the requirements of law.
The procedure which Naavi has been advocating for such purposes involves a trusted third party being able to produce a Section 65B certificate to make the video file admissible as evidence. It is also recommended that a representative of the Court be present at the end of the deposer just to confirm his identity and the process used at his end to depose.
These principles of Cyber Law Compliant video conferencing has been incorporated in the new service that Naavi has launched in his “ODR Global” project through www.arbitration.in.
The “ODR Global Project” is the first leg of a series of activities that Naavi has planned to bring more and more dispute resolutions online. ODR Global uses the “Virtual Arbitration Room” as the key to conducting such proceedings and also provides for the virtual presence of a neutral observer who provides the Section 65B certification.
The “ODR Global Project” is now kept open for investors to join so that it could be scaled up to its potential level of operation.
The David Coleman Headley’s deposition in a similar system is considered in this context as a reminder to the potential that such systems hold for civil judicial process and the ADR process. There is no reason why this should not become a default alternative system of conducting all judicial processes with the consent of all the stake holders.
For more on the advantages of the “ODR Global Project”, visit www.arbitration.in or this investor’s link.
Naavi
