Supreme Court asks High Courts to ensure all criminal trial, civil suit records are digitised by district courts

The Supreme Court recently issued directions to all High Courts towards ensuring digitisation of lower court records [Jitendra Kumar Rode vs Union of India]..In a judgment passed on April 24, a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol stressed that proper and regular digitisation of records is necessary for a smooth judicial process. "Technology has, in the present time become increasingly enmeshed with the systems of dispute resolution and adjudication with the trends pointing leading to all the more interplay, both supplementary and complimentary between technology and law," the Court stated.The Court issued the following directions in this regard:- The Registrar General of the High Courts shall ensure that in all cases of criminal trial, as well as civil suits, the digitization of records must be duly undertaken with promptitude at all District Courts, preferably within the time prescribed for filing an appeal within the laws of procedure. - The concerned District Judge, once the system of digitization along with the system of authentication of the digitized records is in place in their judgeship, to ensure that the records so digitized are verified as expeditiously as possible. - A continually updated record of register of records digitized shall be maintained with periodic reports being sent to the concerned High Courts for suitable directions.The bench noted that the top court's E-Committee had on September 24, 2021, already issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in this regard, which must be complied with..The directions came in an appeal against a November 2022 Allahabad High Court verdict convicting the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act for receiving a bribe of ₹500 in 1995. The High Court had upheld a 1999 trial court order, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone since the records of the lower court were not available.A partially reconstructed record, based mostly on the complaint, had been relied upon for the conviction.Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant moved the top court. The issue before the Court was whether conviction of the appellant despite non-availability of trial court records would amount to violation of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution..The apex court opined that, in the present case, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused since his possibility to appeal against the conviction was effectively extinguished due to the absence of records."A conviction of any nature permanently marks a person's character. It would be, in the specific circumstances of this case, unjustified."The bench underscored that it is well-settled that following the procedure established by law is 'sacrosanct' in criminal matters."If a right of production of documents at the trial stage exists, it is a natural corollary that the High Court, sitting in appeal, must benefit from those documents. In the considered view of this Court, this is a demand of the abovementioned sacrosanct requirement," the Court said.Further, upholding of conviction in a case like the present one 'cannot be said to be in consonance with due process of law and fairness'..The bench held that the entire approach of the High Court was illegal and erroneous, as it did not decide the appeal on merits yet cast the onus to produce the records on the appellant.Given the lapse in time, a re-trial is not feasible, the bench added.Discussing Section 385 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the apex court emphasised that court hearing the appeal has to call for and rely on the lower court records. The present case is, thus, a case of violation of fundamental rights as the High Court did not fulfill its obligation and duty. "Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of liberty from any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court," the judgment said..The conviction was, therefore, set aside by the top court and rhe ₹25,000 fine, if deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the trial court order, was directed to be returned..Advocates Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, and Tushar D Bhelkar appeared for the appellant.Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj with advocates Sharath Nambiar, Indira Bhakar, Vatsal Joshi, Vinayak Sharma, Chitransh Sharma, Nahul Chengappa, and Anuj Srinivas Udupa represented the respondents.[Read Judgment]