Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Shri Khandeparkar submitted that the specific expressions in Section 15-A(10) regarding 'all proceedings' and 'relating to' have definite purpose which has to be given effect. Section 15- A(10) is a measure to ensure compliance of various rights provided under Section 15-A. Shri Khandeparkar further submitted that implementation of Section 15-A or any part thereof was not subject APEAL-911-2019.odt to the framing of any rules. Even otherwise this Court has framed the High Court of Bombay Rules for Video Conferencing of Courts, 2022. These Rules set out the procedure for the Courts in the State of Maharashtra for video conferencing and recording of hearing and specifically provides that audio-visual recordings shall be preserved by encrypting a master-copy with hash value and retaining the same on record. Shri Khandeparkar relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. Central Government and others2 and submitted that framing of the rules is not a precondition for implementation of the statute. For the same proposition he referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonvir alias Somvir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3.