Law Web: Whether Marriage can be registered through power of attorney and through video conferencing?

Therefore, we are of the considered view that the requirement of

presentation of application for registration of the marriage under the Jharkhand

Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002 can be met fully, when such application is

presented by duly authorized power of attorney of the parties, authorized jointly or

separately, coupled with satisfaction of the registering authority through video-

conferencing from the persons who are seeking registration of their marriage and for

that reason the registering authority may permit appearance through video-

conferencing whenever any need arise for opting for such procedure.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the document for

registration can be submitted through power of attorney, which is specifically

provided in the Registration Act itself. However, that provision can be used only for

the purpose of presentation of the application by power of attorney of the party to

the marriage and to avoid any future dispute, a cheap mode of video conferencing

can be used for the purpose of verifying the facts from the party to marriage, for

which registering authority may take help of video conferencing facility provided by

several providers, like Skype or even provided by Email providers, like yahoo. com

and gmail. com etc. The video conferencing is not new and out of reach mode but it

is readily available with public at large and is also not expensive one rather a cheap

mode to live Internet. Normally the Government officers of the rank of the

Registering authority or Registrar of the Marriages, may have been provided with

Computer and Laptop facility with Internet connection, which can be used by such

officer and if they are not having that facility then the parties may be asked to

provide this facility for satisfaction of the registering authority about the genuineness

of the parties to the marriage.

15. In view of the above reasons, it is held that any application for registration of

the marriage can be submitted by the parties to the marriage through power of

attorney and physical presence of the parties can be secured through video-

conferencing in specific cases, where such procedure is required because of the

peculiar facts of such case.

16. Here, in this case, as we have noticed that the husband is Swedish and wife

is Australian and both are Hindu and wife's parent are residents of

Ranchi(Jharkhand) and the petitioners marriage was solemnized in the city of

Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand in India and they are having a small boy of only

eight months and they are unitary family, consist of the husband,wife and small kid.

They are residing at London in United Kingdom. Thus the son's Passport cannot be

issued without marriage certificate of the petitioners and petitioners cannot come to

India, leaving behind their son of eight months only at London.

17. Therefore, in these circumstances, the writ petition of the petitioners is

allowed. The Registering authority under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration

Rules, 2002, framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed to accept the

application for registration of marriage of the petitioners through their Power of

Attorney holder-Smt. Nandini Gupta wife of Shri Dilip Kumar Gupta and may satisfy

himself about the marriage of the petitioners through Video-conferencing, which

facility may be provided to the Registering authority by the petitioners' Power of

Attorney holder.

Jharkhand High Court

Upasana Bali vs Secretariat on 19 September, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 5288 of 2012

CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

MRS JUSTICE JAYA ROY

Citation; AIR 2013 jharkhand 34

Prakash Tatia,CJ- Petitioners are the husband and wife and both are residents of

London in the country of United Kingdom and they have preferred this writ petition

through their Power of Attorney as the petitioners have faced difficulty in getting

registration of their marriage under the provisions of Jharkhand Hindu Marriage

Registration Rules, 2002, which provides procedure for registration of the Hindu

marriages. As per Sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules of 2002, the

application for registration of marriage is required to be presented personally before

the Registrar concerned and the petitioners personally cannot come to present the

application of their registration of marriage for peculiar reasons.

2. Petitioner no.1 is citizen of Australia and she was brought up by her

maternal grand parents at Australia. She has also obtained Passport from the

Australian Government. Petitioner no.2 is citizen of Sweden and has obtained

Passport from the competent authority at Sweden. Presently both the petitioners are

residing in the United Kingdom because of the fact that petitioner no.2 is in

employment at London. The petitioner no.2 being a European citizen having a

Swedish Passport is entitled to live and work in United Kingdom, without any

restriction as per the European Economic Area Law. According to the petitioners,

relevant certification and information with regard to the countries participating in

European Economic Area (E.E.A) and the rights of their citizens to stay in United

Kingdom can be gathered from the official Website- http://www.Ukba. 2

homeoffice.gov.uk/eucitizens/ . The petitioner no.1 being wife of petitioner no.2

has been issued permanent resident Visa of United Kingdom, copy of which has

been placed as Annexure-5 with the writ petition. As per petitioners, their marriage

was solemnized on 12th December, 2002, according to Hindi rites and ritual at

Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner no.1 after marriage got her surname

changed, according to surname of her husband and change of name certificate was

issued by the competent authority from Western Australia, copy of which has been

placed as Annexure-2.

In sum and substance, both the petitioners are residing at London in the United

Kingdom and their marriage was solemnized in the city of Ranchi in the State of

Jharkhand in India. Both the petitioners are having Passport and requisite

documents for living in the United Kingdom. The petitioners were blessed with a

baby boy on 17th January, 2012 at St.Thomas Hospital, Lambeth in United Kingdom

and their son's name is Mihir Raj Bali. The birth certificate was also issued by the

competent authority for petitioners' son Mihir Raj Bali.

3. The problem came when petitioners desired to visit India , particularly, to

Ranchi where the parents of the petitioner no.1, the wife of petitioner no.2, are

residing and specially to attend the marriage of the brother of the petitioner no.1,

which is to be solemnized in the month of November, 2012. The petitioners,

therefore, are in need of getting Passport for their son Mihir Raj Bali, who is entitled

to a Passport as a Swedish citizen on account of his father's citizenship but the

impediment is that to have Passport issued in his favour the petitioners are required

to establish that child's Swedish father was married with his mother and for that

purpose a marriage certificate is being demanded by Swedish Consulate. The

petitioners also faced difficulty in getting name registration( National I.D.) for their

son as it was rejected by the Swedish Tax Agency vide communication dated 29th

June, 2012 on the ground that it considers 'name matters' only for Swedish Citizens

resident overseas or people resident in Sweden. It was stated in the said rejection

note that child was born in Great Britain and has a foreign national mother and

Swedish father. Since it is not evident that the child's Swedish father is married to

the child's mother, the Swedish Tax Agency decides that the child is not a Swedish

citizen. The petitioners placed on record the copy of the said rejection notice along

with translated copy thereof as Annexure-7 and 7/1. The petitioners when inquired

about obtaining certificate after registration of their marriage before the Marriage 3

registering authority at Ranchi, they came across the sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of the

Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002 and if the said Rule is read

literally then it requires personal presence of both the parties to the marriage for

submitting the application for registration of the marriage. The petitioners' family is

unitary family and they do not have anybody who can take care of their only 8

months old child. Petitioners also cannot bring the child as the child cannot get

Passport without petitioners' marriage certificate which can be issued only by

Marriage Registering authority from Ranchi in India. Therefore, petitioners can

present their application for registration of their marriage through their Power of

Attorney which they have executed in favour of petitioner no.1's mother-Smt.Nandini

Gupta. The petitioners are informed that, for presentation of application for the

registration of their marriage, their personal presence is essential.

4. Because of the above peculiar situation, the petitioners proceed to

challenge the vires of sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of Jharkhand Hindu Marriage

Registration Act, 2002 on various grounds. However, petitioners also raised

question whether the provisions of sub-rule(3) of Rule 4 of Jharkhand Hindu

Marriage Registration Act, 2002 does put a mandatory condition of 'personal

presence' of the petitioners applying for marriage registration certificate. If it is so,

then unless said rule is read down to include Power of Attorney or presence through

video-conferencing, it may violate the test of reasonableness. If answer to this

question goes in favour of the writ petitioners, the other issues may not survive,

which includes the challenge to the constitutional validity of the said sub rule on

various grounds.

5. Since after hearing the arguments, we are of the considered opinion that we

need not to go into other issues and we may consider the above referred issue that

whether for getting the registration of marriage under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage

Registration Act, 2002, it is mandatory that applicant should physically appear

before the registering authority for presentation of the application for registration of

the marriage?

6. Sub rule(3) of Rule 4 of The Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules,

2002 (in short " Rules of 2002") is as under :

"The application mentioned in sub-rule(2) shall be

accompanied with a certificate issued by a Gazetted Officer, Mukhiya, Up- Mukhiya of a Gram Panchayat or Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti as to the identity of the parties to the marriage and the correctness of other particulars appearing in 4

the application and shall be presented personally to the Registrar concerned. Where the persons presenting the application so desires he shall be given a receipt for the application in the following form:

Received an application for registration of marriage between ...... and .......... presented by .......

dated .......

Signature ......

[ Registrar or Sub -Registrar of Hindu Marriages ..]

7. From mere reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, it appears that it requires that

parties to the marriage shall present personally before the Registrar concerned for

submitting the application for registration of marriage. The question arises about the

interpretation of the "shall be presented personally" . The word " presence" and it's

meaning came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court , though in a

criminal case but is relevant in this case also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Praful B.Desai and another reported in

[ (2003) 4 SCC 601 ] in detail has considered the requirement of recording of

evidence in presence of the accused as required under Section 273 of the Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and held that such requirement of "personal presence" is not the

actual physical presence but it can be through video conferencing . The Hon'ble

Supreme Court considered a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of

America, in th case of Maryland Vs. Santra Aun Craig, 497 U.S.836(1990)

wherein it has been held that recording of evidence by video-conferencing was not a

violation of the Sixth Amendment(Confrontation Clause). The Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that Criminal Procedure Code is an ongoing statute. The principles of

interpreting an ongoing statute have been very succinctly set out by the leading

jurist Francis Bennion in his commentaries titled Statutory Interpretation, 2nd

Edition , page-617, which we may also quote here again :

"It is presumed Parliament intends the court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wordings to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed. While it remains law, it has to be treated as always speaking. This means that in its application on any day, the language of the Act though necessarily embedded in its own time, is nevertheless to be construed in accordance with the need to treat it as a current law. * * *

In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the original intention. Accordingly, the interpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred since the Act's passing, in law, in social conditions, technology, the meaning of words and other matters.... That today's construction involves the supposition that Parliament was catering long ago for a state of affairs that did not then exist is no argument against that construction. Parliament, in the wording of an enactment, is expected to anticipate temporal developments. The drafter will 5

foresee the future and allow for it in the wording.

* * *

An enactment of former days is thus to be read today, in the light of dynamic processing received over the years, with such modification of the current meaning of its language as will now give effect to the original legislative intention. The reality and effect of dynamic processing provides the gradual adjustment. It is constituted by judicial interpretation, year in and year out. It also comprises processing by executive officials."

( Emphasis supplied)

In the case of National Textile Workers' Union vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan

[(1983) 1 SCC 228], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-9 observed as under :

"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. Similarly, if the law fails to respond to the needs of changing society, then either it will stifle the growth of the society and choke its progress or if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast away the law which stands in the way of its growth. Law must therefore constantly be on the move adapting itself to the fast- changing society and not lag behind."

( Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Dr.Praful B.Desai itself the Supreme Court has followed the

principle of updating construction, as enunciated by Francis Bennion and those

principles have been quoted in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Poddar Cement(P)Ltd. ,

reported in [ (1997)5 SCC 482] , wherein also it has been held that Evidence Act is

also an ongoing Act and it has been held that "handwriting" includes "typewriting".

In the case of SIL Import,USA Vs. Exim Aides Silk Exporters [ ( 1999) 4

SCC, 567, certain other words have been interpreted, so as to make the law, in

fact, ongoing laws rather than stagnant laws making them befitting to the

advancement of the technology in various fields.

In the case of Basavaraj R. Patil Vs. State of Karnataka [ ( 2000)8 SCC

740], the question arose whether an accused needs to be physically present in

court to answer the question put to him by court whilst recording his statement

under Section 313, wherein it is specifically required that " for the purpose of

enabling the accused personally to explain" have been used and it has been held

in the said Dr.Praful B.Desai's case that section had to be considered in the light of

the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the

marked improvement in facilities for legal aid in the country and it was held by the

majority that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by

personally remaining present in court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Dr.Praful B.Desai held that thus the law is well settled that the doctrine of 6

"contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege" has no application when

interpreting a provision of an ongoing statute/Act like the Criminal Procedure Code.

Apart from interpreting the word "presence" and "personal" , the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that the above words are required to be considered in the light of

revolutionary changes in technology communication and transmission and the

marked improvement and also it has been held that video-conferencing mode is , in

fact, satisfies the requirement of the "presence" of the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court rejected the submission that video-conferencing may be " virtual reality" and is

not real, in para-19 of the case of Dr.Praful B.Desai. Para-19 of the said judgment

is as under :

"19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr Sundaram. It was submitted that video-conferencing could not be allowed as the rights of an accused, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be subjected to a procedure involving "virtual reality". Such an argument displays ignorance of the concept of virtual reality and also of video-conferencing. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exist. In virtual reality, one can be made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the sound of the ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one's sofa etc. Video-conferencing has nothing to do with virtual reality. Advances in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far away, as they are actually taking place. To take an example, today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches. One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV. If a person is sitting in the stadium and watching the match, the match is being played in his sight/presence and he/she is in the presence of the players. When a person is sitting in his drawing room and watching the match on TV, it cannot be said that he is in the presence of the players but at the same time, in a broad sense, it can be said that the match is being played in his presence. Both, the person sitting in the stadium and the person in the drawing room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening. This is not virtual reality, it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and hearing what is happening. Video-conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching, one can see, hear and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video-conferencing both parties are in the presence of each other. The submissions of the respondents' counsel are akin to an argument that a person seeing through binoculars or telescope is not actually seeing what is happening. It is akin to submitting that a person seen through binoculars or telescope is not in the "presence" of the person observing. Thus it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law".

8. We may observe here that it was argued that in virtual reality, one can be

made to feel cold when one is sitting in a hot room, one can be made to hear the

sound of ocean when one is sitting in the mountains, one can be made to imagine 7

that he is taking part in a Grand Prix race whilst one is relaxing on one's Sofa etc.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that advance in science and technology have

now shrink the word . They now enable one to see and hear events, taking place far

away, as they are actually taking place and Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed

that today one does not need to go to South Africa to watch World Cup matches.

One can watch the game, live as it is going on, on one's TV and then Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed that both the person sitting in the stadium and the person

in the Drawing Room, are watching what is actually happening as it is happening.

Therefore, this is not virtual reality , it is actual reality. One is actually seeing and

hearing what is happening.

9. It will be appropriate to refer a case being Tax Appeal No. 59 of 2010 (Milan

Poddar Vrs. Commissioner of Income Tax,, Ranchi & anr.) decided by the Division

Bench of this Court (by us) vide judgment dated 18th July,2012. In the said case,

the dispute was with respect to service of notice by "Speed Post". The dispute arose

because of the reason that the speed post, as such, was not included in the mode

of service of notice by post and, therefore, it was argued that the 'post' does not

include the "registered post" or "speed post". The issue was considered by the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in its detailed order. Some

decisions have been quoted in the case of Milan Poddar and it will be appropriate to

take some part from the said order, which is as under :

16. In 1793, Immanuel Kant, wellknown German philosopher,

demanded that even permanently unalterable laws should not be allowed to hold back progress. It is to take care of such situations that section 6 of the Interpretation 1999 of New Zealand specifically provides thus: "Enactments apply to circurrostarIces as they arise." Thus the ambulatory approach as a tool in interpreting elderly legislations is well recognized. Legislation normally continues in force until amended or repealed, regardless of changes in social, technological or other conditions. Over time, the meaning that it bore in the context in which it was enacted may come to produce anachronistic results, or fail to fulfill its purposes, Parliament has a clear mandate to update legislation but systematic legislative updating has proved impossible because of its institutional limitations and the sheer number of statutes. Therefore, the courts have assumed an ambulatory role, updating statutes to reflect changed conditions. Unforeseen innovations and 8

developments, such as developments in technology, or novel social or commercial practice, would need to be accommodated within existing legislation if its text and purpose allow.

17. As stated earlier, age of the text is crucial to the interpretative process. While a newly created legal text needs to be interpreted according to the intent of its author but as time passes the same text may warrant interpretation according to the intention of the system within the the language of those texts ......

18. In Victor Chandler International Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissionerr;(2000) 1 WLR 1297, the question in the context of section 9(1) (b) of the Beeting and Gaming Duties Act, 1981 (UK) was whether advertising by teletext was covered by the prohibition on advertising by offshore bookmakers. Adopting the ambulatory approach, it was held that the information sent from computers to teletext screens was a 'document' despite the fact that teletext had been introduced subsequently to the enactment of the legislation. It was further held that its regulation fell within the purposes of the Act, and the word 'document' was capable of covering such projections. The aforesaid decision has been cited with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, 2004 (2) SCC 510; AIR 2004 SC 1559 as under:

"In Victor Chandler International vs. Customs and Excise Commissioners arid another [(2000) 2 All ER 315 at p. 322], it was stated:

"27. There are, of course, some gaps in legislation that cannot be filled by judge made law. But it is now a well known rule of statutory construction that an 'ongoing' statutory provision should be treated as 'always speaking'. The principle is set out in Bennion Statutory Interpretation (3rd edn, 1997), p.686: (2) It is presumed that Parliament intends the court apply to an ongoing Act a construction that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since, the Act was initially framed (an updating construction). While it remains law, it is to be treated as always speaking (3) A fixed time Act is intended to be applied in the same way whatever changes might occur after its passing. Updating construction 'is not therefore applied to it.

28. These principles received the endorsement of the Court of 9

Appeal in, R. V. Westminster City Council, ex p A(1997) 9 Admin LR 504 at 509, where Lord Woolf MR described the National Assistance Act 1948 as "a prime example of an Act which is "always speaking" and so should be construed" on a construction, that continuously updates its wording to allow for changes since the Act was initially framed".

20. At page 102 of "Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes" (Twelfth Ed,. by P. St. J. Langan), it is stated that the "language of the statute is generraicy extended to new things which were not known and could not have

been contemplated when the Act was passed, when the

Act deals with a genus and the thing which afterwards comes into existence was a species of it."

10. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in holding that requirement of

parties to the marriage to present personally the application for registration of

marriage before the Registrar concerned can be done through video-conferencing.

11. At this juncture, it will be relevant to quote Section 3 of the Evidence Act,

1872 .

Section -3

" In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: -

xx xx xx

"Evidence" - "Evidence" means and includes-

(1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry,

such statements are called oral evidence;

(2) All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court,

such documents are called documentary evidence.

xx xx xx "

A bare perusal of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 clearly indicate that

evidence means and includes all statements which the court permits or requires to

be made before it by witnesses. Therefore, any statement which reaches to the

court through audio visual electronic media is also the statement of the witness

before the Court and that is called oral evidence. Sub- rule(3) of Rule 4 of the Rules

of 2002 and requirement of presentation of the application for registration of

marriage before the Registrar if read mechanically or literally then it may suggest

that mere physical presence of the parties before the registering authority will fulfill

the requirement, but mere personal presence without having right to the Registering

authority to put a question to the presenting person about their own identity will be 10

meaningless and, therefore, such literal reading of the statute will destroy the object

of the statute. Such personal presence is required for the satisfaction of the

authority before whom they are required to appear and the authority may satisfy

himself about their identity and about their marriage by asking many question and

that requirement can be now fulfilled through video-conferencing .

12. The question of recording of statement of witness in the criminal case again

came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakshi

Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2004) 5 SCC 518 ] and the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held in para-31 as under :

"31. The whole inquiry before a court being to elicit the truth, it is absolutely necessary that the victim or the witnesses are able to depose about the entire incident in a free atmosphere without any embarrassment. Section 273 CrPC merely

requires the evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused. The section, however, does not say that the evidence should be recorded in such a manner that the accused should have full view of the victim or the witnesses. Recording of evidence by way of video-conferencing vis-à- vis Section 273 CrPC has been held to be permissible in a recent decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai. There is major difference between

substantive provisions defining crimes and providing punishment for the same and procedural enactment laying down the procedure of trial of such offences. Rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice and are meant to advance and not to obstruct the cause of justice. It is, therefore, permissible for the court to expand or enlarge the meanings of such provisions in order to elicit the truth and do justice with the parties."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the case of Dr.Praful B.Desai

held that, rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice and are meant to advance

and not to obstruct the cause of justice. It is, therefore, permissible for the Court to

expand or enlarge the meanings of such provisions in order to elicit the truth and do

justice with the parties and, therefore, a screen or some such arrangement can be

made where the victim or witnesses do not have to undergo the trauma of seeing the

body or the face of the accused. The law has been interpreted to that extent, so as

to take care of such contingencies which may not appear to be explicitly clear in the

language of the Section but that is inherently included in the word or the phrase of

the statute as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above case.

In the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee [ (2009) 9

SCC 221] the evidence of one of the doctors residing abroad was essential for

deciding a civil case of tort i.e., medical negligence and the Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that if any foreign 11

experts are to be examined, it shall be done through video-conferencing. The

judgment of Dr.Praful B.Desai(supra) was followed in the case of Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav [ (2005) 3 SCC 284 ] and in

the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors.[ (2006) 7

SCC 607 ] and again it has been reiterated that the procedural law should be

construed ongoing statute similar to the Constitution and, thus, creative

interpretation according to the circumstances is permitted. The Court in view of

development of science has to meet and contend with challenge as an intermediary

between the litigant and the court.

13. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the requirement of