Suvarna Rahul Musale vs. Rahul Prabhakar Musale (Bombay High Court)

In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has reproduced valuable observations of Justice Bhagwati in the case of National Textile Workers’ Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan at page 256 as follows:

“We cannot allow the dead hand of the past to stifle the growth of the living present. Law cannot stand still it must change with the changing social concepts and values. If the bark that protects the tree fails to grow and expand along with the tree, it will either choke the tree or if it is a living tree, it will shed that bark and grow a new living bark for itself.”

8. It is to be noted that our legislature has wisely taken note of this fact and accordingly has made the changes in the Evidence Act by amending Section 65 and thereby section 65A, 65B are inserted on the point of recording of evidence relating to electronic record and admissibility of electronic record. When the legislature has expanded the scope of term ‘Evidence’ acknowledging advance technology and scientific methods used by people in their daytoday activities, it is the duty of the Judicial officers to put life to those letters of law by interpreting them effectively.

9. An Attitudal change in Judges is required. We need to train ourselves to understand the pulse of the new generation who is avidly technosavvy. Though it is difficult for the Judges, especially who are in their middle age, to accept and digest the entry of new language and methods of evidence in the established judicial system, it is high time for us to change our mind set and see whether this new technology can help us to increase the speed and also we have to take into account the convenience of the parties as our judicial system is necessarily litigant centric.

10. The presence of the person can be obtained physically so also virtually. What is important is that a person should be seen and be heard and vice versa. These are the methods of distant communication, which is possible by virtual measures and microspeakers. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Judge to insist for the physical presence of the witness when it is not possible especially in the circumstances of this case, a virtual presence can be secured which is very much legal and for this purpose, it is not necessary for the Judge himself to give time but such evidence can be recorded by appointing Commissioner.