Marital cases’ video testimony: Supreme Court plans review

New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will take a call on whether in matrimonial disputes, the evidence of the parties could be recorded through video-conferencing and whether it would affect confidentiality.

A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi disagreed with an earlier decision permitting evidence via video-conferencing and referred the matter to Chief Justice Dipak Misra to set up a large bench to decide this important issue.

A two-judge bench in the Krishna Veni Nagam case had directed that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between the parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are outside the court’s jurisdiction, evidence could be recorded through video-conferencing.

Disagreeing with this, the bench raised the question of the extent to which confidentiality would be safeguarded and protected in video-conferencing, more so when efforts are made by counsellors, welfare experts or the court itself for reconciliation, restitution of conjugal rights or dissolution of marriage, ascertainment of the wishes of a child in custody matters, saying this was a serious issue to be considered.

The judges said it would certainly be difficult in video-conferencing, if not impossible, to keep confidentiality. It must also be noted that footage in video-conferencing becomes a part of the record, whereas the reconciliatory efforts made otherwise are not meant to be a part of the record.

The principal thrust of the law in family matters is to try reconciliation before processing disputes in the legal framework. These aspects were not brought before the bench which had decided the dispute earlier, the court said. “We are of the view that the directions issued by this court in the Krishna Veni Nagam case need reconsideration on the aspect of video-conferencing in matrimonial disputes. We are of the view that the matter requires consideration by a larger bench,” the judges said.