Who Controls The Mute Button In Online Trials?
canopic jug writes:
A lawyer at the Supreme Court of India, Mary Mitzy, asks in the DeccanChronicle about who controls the right to actually speak incourt during online trials:Specifically she asks, who controls the mute button in online court cases? Currently court does not meet in personand takes up only matters it deems urgent.The court is using a proprietary systemfor video conferencing, which would raise additional questions on SN,yet proprietary or not the matter of muting affects not only theoutcomes of the trials but also the flow of justice.
Indian courts follow the system of an open court hearing. Everyone canwatch the proceedings. But the Vidyo app has a limit in terms of thenumber of participants who can be admitted and the Supreme Court, too,came out with a notification restricting the advocates from sharingthe link for appearance. It has affected mostly young advocates keento learn court craft from watching the courts function.
But there's been worse happening. Many a time, during hearing a case,the advocate was logged out at the relevant moment and was unable tolog in. This resulted in the case being decided in their absence. Itis with great difficulty that one gets one's case listed for hearingand if it is decided in one's absence then one's entire effort becomesfutile. On top of that, there is the pain of humiliation before one'sclient.
[...] Now, the cases heard by the Supreme Court have anywhere betweentwo and 30 parties. Who decides who will be unmuted? A control room thathas no idea about the proceedings of a case? Advocates keep sendingrequests to be unmated [sic] or for the senior advocate to be allowedto speak. But only if they are lucky will their request be grantedbefore the case is over. Or else, you just count yourself to be onthe "unlucky list".
[N.B. - This is from the opinion section of the site and pertains to the court system in India.]
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.