Vidhikarya Logo
Callback Request
Call Back Request
Track Your Request
Track Your Request
+91-7604047602 Legal Blog For Students Free Legal Advice Lawyer Login

Litigants and the Lockdown - A court perspective

Litigants and the Lockdown - A court perspective
It is interesting to see the judiciary come up with new solutions to the novel problem of the lockdown, and so far the courts have been doing what they can to ensure that the regular functioning of the courts isnot hampered too much by the fact that people are no longer allowed to be present in person. India has tried to embark on the path to digitize the court system, and it took a pandemic and a lockdown to finally realize the object of a fully digitized court system. Although one must beware, it does come with own sew of hiccups and issues the court doesn’t have either the readiness or capacity to address.

It is interesting to see the judiciary come up with new solutions to the novel problem of the lockdown, and so far the courts have been doing what they can to ensure that the regular functioning of the courts is not hampered too much by the fact that people are no longer allowed to be present in person. India has tried to embark on the path to digitize the court system, and it took a pandemic and a lockdown to finally realize the object of a fully digitized court system. Although one must beware, it does come with own sew of hiccups and issues the court doesn’t have either the readiness or capacity to address.

Measures taken by the Courts

In the months since the lockdown has been announced, the Supreme Court and many High Courts have made a fit case for moving proceedings online and making filings to the registrar through E-mail. Courts have even passed decorum rules for the presentation of lawyers during these online proceedings.Most importantly, courts have reduced the staffing capacities during the lockdown, and ensured that only essential matters are heard during the lockdown. These measures have had some uneventful consequences, among them the unfortunate interpretation by the Bombay High Court that Bail petitions were not essential litigation,further this as extended to the Supreme Court hearing on matters regarding the government’s handling of migrant workers’ transportation during the lockdown. This paper has only one objective: To understand the plight and status of the average litigant during and after the lockdown through the lens of the effect the multiple orders and guidelines passed by courts have had on the overall functioning of the lower-level judiciary.

Litigation Bottle necking

The first interesting point is that the majority of litigation happens in the courts of the first instance, this means that the district, sessions and family courts are the ones that handle a majority of the litigant traffic in the country. They are the worst affected since the implementation of online proceedings, filings and arguments take time and are difficult to trickle down to these courts. Even though the Andhra Pradesh High Court, among others, has passed notifications requiring the lower level judiciary to function online and try to import as much of their regular functioning online, it is not the case in many courts, and in fact, these online proceeding guidelines have been misinterpreted in requiring that counsel arrive in court to present their arguments which will then be broadcast to the judge over the air, thus defeating the entire purpose of moving proceedings online. This is just one example of the first instance of the judiciary being barely prepared to handle the porting over to online applications. Litigants have been left with a choice to make such arguments before the judiciary, which make a fit case that their matters fall into the narrow definition of essential cases.

The effects of the judiciary pausing or altering its workflow and suffering quantitative setbacks has been seen in both the U.S., South Africa and the UK,where either the judiciary has shut its doors or is working in a similar fashion to Indian Courts.The main issue is that judiciaries over the world are not prepared to deal with the backlogs in their dockets, much less the onslaught of disputes and matters that will come to the fore specifically during the pandemic.

One interesting example is execution proceedings on time-bound orders passed by the competent court. In the U.S. since the courts in many cities have closed up the execution of decrees has been impossible, and so has the execution of relief, this has especially hurt the housing sector in the country since many tenants are losing their houses due to the stoppage of income during the pandemic. Since there are no courts, these tenants are unable to secure their living conditions and act against illegal evictions. This has been replicated in India but in a slightly more insidious form”: Right after the announcement of the lockdown by the MHA, extensions had been granted on all orders passed by respective High Courts, meaning that all time-bound executions were pushed by a month from March 24th. The only problem is that partial lockdown is still in force, now towards the end of June, and since courts have severely prioritized on case-load, it has become difficult for litigators to seek remedy, or extension or otherwise. This consequence is the sole product of the courts being unable to adapt to digital conduct of proceedings thus hampering the processing of matters and therefore nullifying all the benefit and advantage rendered to the litigant in the process of granting the extension in the first place. There is again the issue of national-level tribunals extending their shutdown, where originally the NCLT shut down for a few weeks, that had later been extended in a separate notification dated Apr 24, similarly, the NCDRC has also extended its shut down till the initial May 3rd deadline.Not only does this prevent the litigant from accessing these tribunals to exercise his powers of appeal, but it also reduces his chances of timely or at least speedy redressal since this continued shutdown will increase the backlog of cases in these tribunals.

Coupled with the lack of a long term plan of action regarding whether the digital filing system that has been adopted during the pandemic will be continued after,it is unclear how litigation will get back on its feet. It is imperative that the improvement since digitization is preserved because in the aftermath of the pandemic there will be an onslaught of litigants that will need to be serviced and that number will only grow if the courts do not manage to increase their efficiency during the lockdown, and they should be mindful of the small but significant increments that help in creating an impact that is bigger than the sum of its products. The remote service of petitions and video conferencing the proceedings are two main developments that the pandemic has sprouted that have the potential to make the courts more accessible in the long run.It is the continued deployment that will see this accessibility become a reality. It is interesting to note that previously in 2013, the Delhi district courts had been once attempted to be digitized at great expense, the judges were provided with drawing tablets and monitors so that all required documents could be displayed and processed digitally without the need to make any print copies in the entire process. With the Madras HC still requiring physical copies to be filed for proceedings even during the lockdown, one can appreciate how well this scheme of digitization has caught on.

Procedural Differences

Moving court proceedings online also means that there will be a difference in the procedural aspects. The most glaring of which the Supreme Court has addressed in its Suo Motu decision on video conferencing: The Electronic evidence rule, the requirements to prove a document saved in an electronic form re greater, and Sec. 65B and 45 of the Evidence Act will play a greater role now that physical appearance has been limited. Documents for evidence could earlier be submitted in physical form, and marking and admissibility was a simpler process of procurement and submission. With electronic evidence, things are a little more complicated.

It is known that under Sec. 65B electronic evidence can be produced either on paper, or optical drive or otherwise. The real problem is the verification and admission of secondary evidence and the admission of electronic forms of a conventionally physical medium. The procedure for admission of secondary electronic evidence is given in the act itself. But the procedure for admitting a digital copy of a document, when physical counterparts were available or were the norm, is a topic that has not been broached. In Sec. 65, the conditions under which secondary evidence could be produced have been enumerated, and it is a matter of note that courts will find it difficult to admit secondary electronic evidence when primary documents are available and may be produced before the court. The two main decisions governing electronic evidence: State NCT of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu[2005] 11 SCC 600, where the court decided on the instances where secondary evidence could be produced, among other things; it was held and can be inferred that secondary evidence should be produced in those situations where primary versions of the documents were hard, or impossible to find. The other decision being Anwar v P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, here again,the matter of discussion was the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. Outlining the procedural requirements that are necessary for the submission of secondary electronic evidence. Sec. 63 is the operating section when it comes to the general admission of secondary evidence, while mechanical copies could be admitted as secondary evidence, the specific question is whether this will clash with the requirement in Sec. 65B. The only case that discusses this peculiarity is Darshan Kaur v Amritsar Primary O-operative Agricultural Bank Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (2) PLR 289 here it was held that a photostat of a document while not being primary evidence, was not entirely secondary evidence.

The safer assumption is that such evidence is electronically submitted since the original document is difficult to bring before the court. The only issue is, the original physical documents may be brought before the court only that it will take much longer, should that be allowed as an exemption to producing electronic evidence? This brings us to the best evidence rule, a principle that states that a party who as the burden of proof needs to submit to the court. The Supreme Court discussed the doctrine in Bal Hira Devi v Official Assignee of Bombay 1958 SCR 1384 here the court rad the principle into Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act. The proposition being that a document was the best evidence of the contents of the document, and this rule extended to all secondary evidence. This is the primary concern with the Supreme Court’s mandate to move all proceedings online, while it would have been clarificatory to pass an order deeming all electronically submitted versions of documents the primary evidence of a document for the time being at least, much confusion could have been avoided.

Then there is the issue of cross-examination if the process is happening remotely, would it be as effective as usual, or would the examinations performed remotely be granted the status of examinations under oath and affidavit under O-19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is important to note that examination is not just to elicit answers to the questions posed, but also to observe the conduct and demeanour of the witness. For that reason, the question becomes, whether the examination conducted out of court, will need to be sworn on affidavit.

While usually the granting of cross-examination on video-conferencing was the discretion of the court, it was usually used in situations where the witnesses were hard to produce before the court. Thus precedent existed for allowing examination and cross to happen through video conferencing, but its used as an exception to the rule is to be noted.


In light of the above observations, it can be concluded that the average litigant has been affected negatively by the pandemic, and will continue to be affected negatively unless the court system takes action and actively attempts to reduce the burden on the judiciary during the pandemic and makes the process a little more accessible in light of the continued lack of access during the lockdown. In short, the following are the consequences for the average litigant:

  1. The matters that they have submitted before the court may not be addressed for a long time to come.
  2. If they are addressed, they might not qualify as essential litigation.
  3. Due to the lack of experience of the courts in the digitization of proceedings, and the in-general reluctance to adapt, all attempts at accessibility are hamstrung at the origin.
  4. The courts are underprepared to meet the demand of their litigants after the lockdown has been lifted, and excessive demand has been created by either shutdown of the court/ tribunal, or reduced capacity operation (which is again a consequence of underutilization of the digital resource alternatives).

Posted On : July 2, 2020

Written By :
Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge
Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Retired Judge
D.O.E. : 1/1986
Bangalore | Kolkata | Mumbai | Hyderabad | Chennai |

Recommended Free Legal Advices
question markIVF while divorce is filed
Hello If you filed for divorce in the India, you generally can obtain a divorce decree from the court that issued the document. Alternatively, you can request an official copy from the office of vital records in the state where your divorce was finalized. Thanks Please rate if you find this advice helpful.
question markIllegal temple construction in society premises & loud speaker nuisance
Section 2(a) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,as amended up to date includes noise in the definition of 'air pollutant'. As per Rule 4 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000,a loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority and the same shall not be used at night i.e. between 10.00p.m. and 6.00 a.m. The noise level at the boundary of the public place, where loudspeaker or public address system or any other noise source is being used shall not exceed 10 dB (A) above the ambient noise standards for the area or 75 dB (A) whichever is lower; A person found violating the provisions as to the maximum noise permissible in any particular area shall be liable to be punished for it as per the provisions of these rules and any other law in force. Noise pollution amounts to public nuisance . Under the Indian Penal Code,1860,as amended up to date, Noise pollution can be dealt under Sections 268, 290 and 291 of the Indian Penal Code, as a public nuisance. Under Section 268 of this Code, it is mentioned that 'A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.' Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,as amended up to date, the Magistrate has the power to make conditional order requiring the person causing nuisance to remove such nuisance. You can complain to the nearest police station, call 100 or file an online complaint with your State’s police complaint portal to prevent that noise pollution. The officer in charge of the police station, police commissioner or any officer (not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police) can take action by: Seizing equipment, Stopping the use of a microphone or loudspeaker, etc, Going to the Pollution Control Board and getting a written order prohibiting the noise. You can pray before the Court of the District Magistrate for Temporary order of injunction to stop the loudspeaker noise,for Order to remove the noise or regulate it,for Permanent order to remove the noise pollutant and stop the noise. You can also file an application in online before the National Green Tribunal seeking compensation for environmental damage as the sound pollution amounts to air pollution.
question markSuicide
My friend is telling that very soon he will do suicide. So I have to inform police or should wait? Answer: It your duty to make him understand how important life is also do inform this to his close people who can understand and off-course Police is very important to be informed so do it on priority
If you are aggrieved with the decision of the school then you can write to the education department of the state government which regulated the school and if they don't pay heed to you then you can knock the door of the court against the school and the government for such arbitrary decision.
question markFee waiver denial for disabled child
Hi, According to The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, every child with benchmark disability between the age group of 6 and 18 years shall have the right to free education and also entitled to 5% reservation in seats in Government and Government aided higher educational institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities. If proper action has not been taken even after you have filed complaint to the officials concerned, you can move to court and seek the remedy. You will get Justice. Please rate my answer Thank You
Expert Lawyers in Human Rights Civil Criminal

Please enter the text



Send your queries to

[email protected]
Consult Divorce Lawyers from your City!
Post Your Matter
Post Your Matter to connect with the Lawyer online
Call 7604047602 for any assistance
Symbol for Lawyer
Find Lawyers by Location

Download the Clients App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Contact Details

[email protected]
505-A, Terminus Building,
Newtown, Action Area I,
Kolkata 700156

Download the Lawyers App on

Vidhikarya App on Android Platform

Certified by Startup India, DPIIT


Payment secured by :

PayUMoney PayPal net banking
visa master maestro
Celebrating 5 years