Famous Canadian author Naomi Klein in her book called The Rise of Disaster Capitalism proposed the ‘Shock Doctrine‘, which states that national disasters are used by the government to push through pro-big-business, neo-liberal policies, especially policies which are likely to meet with lot of resistance during normal time. But during a crisis like war or pandemic, people are emotionally distracted, and wants the government to act strong and decisive, and so it becomes an opportunity for the government to push through polices that may be anti-people, but without much protests from the distracted people. To put the doctrine differently, it is capitalizing the disaster by the state, when its subjects are lying down and felt threatened.
Introduction of Virtual Courts ( http://vcourts.gov.in ) in Kerala is one such shock move by the Kerala High Court to capitalize the Corona pandemic. Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Ernakulam, is notified as the Virtual Court and it has territorial jurisdiction over the whole State of Kerala. Special CJM for MLA/MP Trial, Ernakulam is notified as the court to deal with contested cases in the Virtual Court.
Virtual Court is a software developed by National Informatics Center (NIC) under the aegis of E-Committee of the Supreme Court of India. The court is designed to deal with traffic offenses and petty cases, where there are high probabilities for the accused to plead guilty, and settle the crime on payment of fine. It was functioning in Delhi and other metropolitan cities for the past few months, and Kerala is the 4th state to implement it after Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Maharashtra. In Kerala, it started functioning since 15th June 2020.
Now what is wrong with the present setup of the Virtual Court? There are plenty!
Firstly, Virtual Court has jurisdiction over whole of State of Kerala, and it is physically located at Ernakulam. So, if a person hailing from Muvattupuzha or Malappuram wants to contest a petty traffic offense wrongly charged against him, he has to come to Ernakulam with two sureties and their land-tax receipts, to contest the case. This means that everyone is legally coerced to plead guilty to traffic offenses.
Secondly, there is no proper facility in the Virtual Court to verify the true identity of the person pleading guilty before it. The identity of the person is verified by the Virtual Court by sending an OTP to the mobile number recorded by the detecting officer in the traffic chellan. There is no cross-verification of that mobile-number recorded in the chellan with the official Sarathy/Parivahan databases, which holds the true details of the licensed driver/registered-vehicles. So, if a mobile number is wrongly feed in the traffic chellan by the detecting officer, then that wrong person can plead guilty on behalf of somebody else. This can be a serious issue as ten or more chellans can lead to cancellation of driving license/permit of the vehicle.
Thirdly, Virtual Court is so open to everyone, that even akshaya centre operators can plead guilty in the court on behalf of charged offenders. This would lead to wrongful representation in the court, in violation of Advocates Act. There is no advocate’s dashboard or login in the present setup of the Virtual Court. It is designed to exclude the advocates, which is not correct or fair in a democratic institution. A court without lawyers is a court violating human rights. The Virtual Court will cause immediate loss of work for 10% of lawyers and law clerks in the lower courts, who rely on traffic offenses and petty cases, for leading their livelihood.
Fourthly, petty cases are the stepping stone for all the young lawyers interested in litigation practice. I started my practice with the flimsy argument ‘Accused absent applies, pleading guilty’, at JFCM, Perumbavoor. With the introduction of virtual court, the judiciary is stealing the basics from young lawyers. I don’t know, may be hereafter, the Kerala High Court wants Public Interest Litigation (PILs) to be the stepping stone for young advocates.
Virtual Court was imported to Kerala from the Supreme Court, during the corona pandemic, while the entire legal community was emotionally distracted. It is not designed properly, and is an affront to the very concept of ‘Virtual Court’. A court without lawyers should not be called a court at all. At present the virtual court is nothing but a ‘Virtual Cash-Counter’ to collect money. Appointing a magistrate to man the Virtual Cash-Counter is demeaning to the post of a Magistrate.
I hope the legal community of Kerala takes serious note of this improperly designed Virtual-Cash-Counter/Court, and take remedial measures to address its shortcomings.
PTG Associates 