Holding conferences between two or more participants at different locations using computer networks to transmit audio and video data. For example, a point-to-point (two-person) video conferencing system works almost like a video telephone. Each participant has a video camera, microphone and speakers mounted on their computer. As two participants talk to each other, their voices reach the other’s speakers through the network, and whatever images appear in front of the video camera appear in a window on the other participant’s monitor.
Video conferencing is an affordable way to facilitate live, interactive communication across different geographies.
Video conferencing systems were formerly found in the largest multinationals due to their high cost, but this technology has been widely adopted in recent years. Video conferencing can be used for various purposes, including:
However, it is difficult to overlook the benefits of this format in terms of reduction in travel time and ease of collaborative work. Videoconferencing actually encapsulates many of the technologies used in a wide variety of situations, often transmitting data, not just video and audio, making it possible to perform collaborative work through shared applications.
In practice, a ‘studio’ may not be a dedicated room, but a standard seminar room with portable equipment that can be installed if needed.
A simple definition of videoconferencing is “a television telephone class in which two or more parties can talk in real time and even see each other in real time”. It essentially consists of a camera, one or more monitors, microphones for each participant, audio speakers, and other necessary equipment”
Video conferencing, particularly current desktop video conferencing systems, has received considerable criticism. Some criticisms have been levelled at the difficulties encountered in the configuration and operation of systems, the quality of their output and the limitations concerning the use and compatibility of systems of different brands. Another criticism is that extensive video conferencing will not lead to a reduction, but rather an increase, in the time allocated for meetings. Another drawback that has been pointed out is that it cannot have face-to-face contact because one cannot simultaneously see directly in the camera and screen. However, the biggest concern in India is that video conferencing from an unsafe location may pose a threat to a witness without the knowledge of the court. For example, a witness testifying in front of a camera may have a gun pointed at the head from a distance and will not appear on camera, affecting the quality of the evidence. Other activities surrounding the witness may also be invisible by the Court, seriously affecting the credibility of the testimony given.
In order to further understand the concept of videoconferencing, methods for conducting videoconferencing may be considered.
1. Videophone: A videophone, also called a video telephone, is a device that transmits and receives both audio and video signals simultaneously over telephone lines. In addition to bi-marginal speech transmissions traditionally associated with telephones, there has been interest for many years in transmitting bi-marginal video signals over telephone circuits to facilitate communication between two parties. Bi-pathway video communication systems use a videophone at each end. The videophone includes a personal video camera and display, a microphone and speaker, and a data-conversion device. The data-conversion apparatus allows video transmission over a telephone circuit through the use of two components: a compression/expansion circuit, which reduces the amount of information contained in the video signal, and a modem, which converts the digital video signal into analog telephone line format “Videophones”, that is telephones capable of sending and receiving at least some kind of video image, were first introduced at the 1964 New York World’s Fair with “picture phones”. These devices have not been very successful in India due to both high price and low quality.
2. Building a centralized, internal facility: Videoconferencing traditionally consisted of “a facility as elaborate and expensive as a professional television production studio”. In addition, expensive high-bandwidth telephone lines or satellite connections were required. Today, internal features can be created in a somewhat cost-effective manner. Only a few large firms in India have complete videoconferencing rooms equipped with proper equipment. Some courts across the country also have dedicated video conferencing halls, such as Bangalore Criminal Court.
3. Desktop Videoconferencing Capabilities: Imagine being able to meet remote colleagues, partners, and customers face-to-face, without having to get up from your desk. Polycom Real Presence Desktop Solutions provide easy-to-use HD videoconferencing, voice and content collaboration to individuals at all levels of the organization. This method of videoconferencing is perhaps the most common and most accessible to a small lawyer and his witness. With the advent of technology and falling prices, video conferencing between two individuals at the initial stage is extremely economical. In fact, it is one of the most common means of communication between people.
In the present legal system, evidence is collected under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure). Sections 230-234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide the judge with the right to record evidence in criminal cases and to compel witnesses to appear. Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been interpreted as a provision for questioning witnesses through video conferencing. Sections 30-34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide the Court with the right to compel witnesses to appear and record evidence in civil cases. There is no express provision in the Indian legal system allowing recording of testimony through video conferencing and video conferencing. However, there are a number of cases that allow this.
Rural cancer patients have many unmet psychological needs. Tele psychology is a new and viable option that can provide cost-savings and help address disparities in access to experts. This is the first known study of psychological treatment provided solely through video conferencing for people with cancer. Our hypothesis was that a tele-psychology service would improve the anxiety and depression levels and quality of life of rural cancer patients, and that it would be an acceptable, satisfactory and practical way of providing the service. Twenty-five cancer patients attended an average of three sessions with a clinical psychologist, where they were provided with brief cognitive-behavioral therapy. Questionnaires were completed ex post and in a one-month follow-up phase. Examination of the witness where he lives far away or is physically inaccessible. Where the witness is not able to attend the proceedings due to his ill health. Where security concerns arise to ensure the presence of a witness or accused.
Praful Desai’s case ruled the law in terms of video conferencing and its evidentiary value; This was later mentioned in the case of Sakshi vs. Union of India. In Praful Desai’s case the facts were that the complainant’s wife was suffering from incurable cancer. The prosecution said the complainant’s wife was examined by Dr. Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital, New York, USA. Ernest Greenberg, who said that his operation was not possible and that he should be treated only with medicines. Thereafter the complainant and his wife approached the respondent (Dr. Consulted Praful Desai), who had been employed as a consulting surgeon for the past 40 years. Dr. Despite being aware of Greenberg’s opinion, the defendant suggested surgery to remove the uterus.
The prosecution said that the complainant and his wife had agreed to the operation on the condition that the operation would be carried out by the defendant. The prosecution case was that on 22 December 1987, Dr. A.K. Mukherjee operated on the complainant’s wife and when the stomach was opened, fluid came out of the stomach. Dr. A.K. Mukherjee contacted the respondent, who advised to stop the stomach. Dr. A.K. Mukherjee accordingly closed the stomach and this resulted in intestinal fistula. The prosecution argued that whenever the complainant’s wife ate or drank, fluid came out of the wound. The complainant’s wife required 20/25 dressings daily in the hospital for more than three and a half months and thereafter until her death. The complainant’s wife suffered terrible physical torture and mental anguish and it was argued that after the operation the respondent did not check the complainant’s wife even once.
Defendant and Dr. A.K. A complaint was filed by the complainant against Mukherjee under section 338 read with sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The procedure was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The defendant challenged the issue of procedure and took it to the Supreme Court. Special leave petitions filed by the defendant were dismissed by the Supreme Court on July 8, 1996, and the defendant was directed to face trial. On June 29, 1998, the prosecution videoconferenced Dr. Submitted an application to question Greenberg. The lower court granted that application on 16 August 1999. The defendant challenged that order in the High Court. The High Court accepted the criminal application filed by the defendant, against which the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The question before the Supreme Court was regarding the evidentiary value of video conferencing and whether it is within the due process of law. It was argued that section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for the taking of evidence by video conferencing. Section 273 stressed the words “except as otherwise provided” and it was argued that unless there was an express provision to the contrary, the procedure laid down in section 273 should be followed as it was mandatory. It was argued that section 273 provided that evidence “shall be taken in the presence of the accused” and that video conferencing did not place the witness in the presence of the accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 273 mandates constructive presence and does not mandate physical presence and additionally, the meaning of evidence includes both oral, documentary and electronic records. This meant that evidence in criminal cases could also be in the form of electronic records and through state video conferencing Dr. Gutenberg can interrogate.
Read Also:
Technical writing is also called the science of designing and packaging information that is prepared…
Technical writing is a form of writing that helps explain complex and intricate processes related…
In today's busy life, weakness and fatigue are common things. A person must have felt…
Do you always feel tired? Is the complexion of your face not the same as…
The dark web refers to encrypted online content that is not indexed by traditional search…
The Dark Web Explained—96 percent of the Internet is the Dark Web. This is an…