Supreme Court Revisits Use of Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Proceedings, Emphasizes Protection of Women’s Rights and In-Camera Hearings

Larger Bench to Examine Scope of Family Courts Act, 1984 on Virtual Hearings; Videoconferencing Allowed Only Post-Failed Settlement with Consent, Transfer Petitions Excluded

In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2017, the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the sensitive issue of conducting matrimonial disputes through videoconferencing under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar examined the implications of technology in family court proceedings, especially the sanctity of in-camera hearings and the dignity and rights of women, while also addressing the convenience and hardships caused by territorial jurisdiction constraints.

The case arose from a transfer petition concerning matrimonial proceedings that were pending in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, with the wife seeking transfer to a Family Court in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The Court, while acknowledging the practical difficulties faced by litigants traveling long distances, especially women without independent income, initially considered the use of videoconferencing to avoid such hardships.

However, after extensive analysis, the Court underscored that matrimonial proceedings are uniquely sensitive and require a high degree of confidentiality and personal interaction between parties and the Family Court Judge. Section 11 of the Family Courts Act mandates proceedings to be held in camera if either party so desires, preserving the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved.

The Court emphasized the constitutional identity, freedom of choice, and dignity of women, affirming that these cannot be compromised even momentarily. It observed that videoconferencing, although a valuable technological tool, may not adequately safeguard these rights during critical stages such as reconciliation efforts, which necessitate physical presence and direct interaction to foster trust and effective communication.

The Court overruled the earlier two-Judge Bench decision in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam to the extent that videoconferencing could be unilaterally directed merely on the consent of one party or in transfer petitions. Instead, it laid down a nuanced approach:

1. Matrimonial dispute hearings must be held in camera, respecting the right of either party to request confidentiality.

2. Videoconferencing may be permitted only after reconciliation or settlement efforts have failed, and when both parties file a joint application or respective consent memoranda seeking such a mode of hearing.

3. The Family Court retains discretion to allow videoconferencing if it is convinced that such a method will serve the cause of justice, considering the facts and circumstances.

4. Videoconferencing is not permissible in transfer petitions.

5. The directives will apply prospectively to future cases.

The judgment also highlighted the indispensable role of Family Courts in speedy settlement of matrimonial disputes, underscoring that delay can exacerbate bitterness and emotional fragmentation. The Court noted that reconciliation efforts require the physical presence of parties to facilitate confidential, meaningful dialogue, which videoconferencing may impair.

Notably, the judgment incorporated a dissenting opinion by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who advocated for a progressive and technology-friendly approach. He argued that videoconferencing is a gender-neutral tool facilitating access to justice by reducing costs and hardships, especially for parties facing difficulties like employment constraints, disabilities, or social handicaps. He observed that with proper safeguards, videoconferencing can maintain in-camera proceedings and confidentiality without compromising justice.

Justice Chandrachud also urged High Courts to frame appropriate rules regulating videoconferencing in family disputes, allowing Family Courts to exercise discretion case-by-case, thereby balancing modern technological advantages with the sensitive nature of matrimonial litigation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment thus strikes a balance between embracing modern technology and protecting the constitutional rights and dignity of women in matrimonial proceedings. It underscores that while videoconferencing is a useful adjunct, it cannot replace the fundamental requirement of physical presence during reconciliation stages, nor can it be imposed unilaterally or in transfer petitions.

The matter has been referred to a larger Bench to consider the broader implications of videoconferencing in matrimonial disputes, signaling ongoing judicial scrutiny to harmonize technology with justice delivery in family law.

Statutory provisions

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 11, 19, 22, 23, 26; Family Courts Act, 1984 Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 32A Rules 2, 3, 4; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 Order 41 Rule 2; Constitution of India Articles 15(3), 139A(2), 243D, 243T.

Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 907729