Listening to Justice: What Audio and Video Glitches Reveal at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

/
Articles and Blogposts /
Listening to Justice: What Audio and Video Glitches Reveal at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

I. Abstract

Discussions on technology in the judiciary today often centre around ambitious ideas. Artificial Intelligence (hereinafter AI), blockchain, Internet of Things (hereinafter IoT) and automated case management systems are regularly projected as the future of courts. These conversations are important and relevant in the current scenario. However, they also risk overlooking a more basic concern, which is how existing, everyday technologies function inside courtrooms. One such overlooked area is the routine use of audio and video systems. Microphones, speakers, screens, internet connectivity and virtual hearing platforms now form a regular part of proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter NCLT). These systems are no longer optional additions. They are central to how hearings take place, especially in a post-pandemic environment where virtual and hybrid hearings have become common. Yet, in practice, audio and video systems often remain unreliable. Poor sound clarity, malfunctioning microphones, frozen screens, network disruptions, and uneven audio-visual arrangements across benches are recurring features rather than rare exceptions. These issues are frequently treated as minor technical glitches. This blog argues that they are not.

II. Introduction

A courtroom functions through communication. Arguments are made orally, clarifications are sought on a real-time basis and judicial engagement depends heavily on clear hearing and visual cues. When audio fails, the hearing itself is affected. When video freezes or drops, participation becomes uneven, fragmented and a cumbersome process. In NCLT proceedings, where insolvency matters are often time-sensitive and involve multiple stakeholders, even small interruptions can have a disproportionate impact. Counsel may have to repeat submissions. Judges may miss portions of arguments. Parties joining virtually may not hear directions clearly or may be dropped from the proceedings altogether.

These are not abstract concerns. They shape how hearings unfold on a daily basis. A hearing that is interrupted multiple times due to network failures rarely proceeds at the same pace or with the same clarity as one conducted without such disruptions. Over time, these interruptions accumulate and affect timelines, coordination among stakeholders and the overall conduct of proceedings.

When the Network Goes Down

One recurring issue observed in my field study1 is the dependence of audio-visual systems on stable network connectivity. When the network goes down, the entire system of microphones, speakers, video feeds and virtual platforms becomes non-functional. Hearings may be paused, adjourned or conducted in a fragmented manner. This is particularly significant in hybrid hearings, where some participants are physically present in the courtroom while others join virtually. A network failure does not merely inconvenience remote participants, it disrupts the hearing for everyone involved. The courtroom effectively comes to a standstill until connectivity is restored.

Such stoppages are rarely reflected in formal orders or case records but they form part of the lived reality of NCLT functioning. They affect how much time is actually available for hearing matters on a given day and how efficiently that time is used.

Why These Disruptions Matter in a Burdened System

Official data relating to adjudicatory bodies in the domain shows that pendency remains a persistent feature despite regular disposals and fresh filings each year. The NCLT continues to carry significant pendency. While such data does not identify specific causes of delay, it highlights the pressure under which it operates. In this context, uninterrupted hearings become especially important. When a system is already managing a high volume of cases, the cost of inefficiencies increases. Audio and video disruptions do not create pendency on their own but they do affect how smoothly hearings proceed within an already constrained system.

My argument does not seek to draw a direct link between audio-visual failures and pendency figures. Rather, it highlights how basic infrastructural disruptions affect the conduct of hearings in an environment where time, attention and judicial capacity are already stretched.

Technical Failures Across Benches

Another issue that emerges from observing NCLT proceedings is the recurring failure of audio and video infrastructure. NCLT Kolkata operates with two benches and during the field study, it was observed that both the benches experienced technical disruptions like microphones cutting out, screens freezing, and network failures interrupting virtual participation. Sound clarity was poor and virtual participants, largely counsels, frequently struggled to follow proceedings. This has implications for consistency and fairness. Litigants and counsel appearing before either bench encountered unpredictable technological conditions, even though the procedural framework remains the same. Such disruptions may not appear significant on paper but they shape the actual experience of justice delivery.

Here, it gets very important to clarify what this discussion does not attempt to do. I am not putting out a proposal for technological reform nor is it an argument for immediate system-wide upgrades. It does not advocate for AI or complex digital interventions. My argument also does not claim that better audio and video systems will, by themselves, resolve delays or pendency.

The focus here is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The aim is to contextualise how everyday audio and video functioning shapes hearings in practice at the NCLT and how clarity, interruptions and breakdowns create misunderstanding amongst the judicial members and the counsels arguing their cases which hugely affect participation, pacing of arguments and the overall conduct of proceedings.

Looking at the Basics before the Future

The push towards smart courts and advanced judicial technologies often assumes that foundational systems are already functioning smoothly. My observations from NCLT Kolkata suggest that this assumption does not always hold true. Before courts move towards complex technological solutions, by making their arena high-end tech-proof, it is worth paying attention to the simplest tools that allow people to hear and see each other clearly. These tools form the backbone of any hearing, whether physical, virtual or hybrid. Audio and video systems may not attract the same attention as artificial intelligence or blockchain but their everyday functioning has immediate and tangible effects on how justice is delivered. Recognising this does not mean rejecting innovation. It means grounding future reforms in present realities.

Conclusion

Technology in the judiciary should not be assessed only by the ambition of its future plans but also by the reliability of its everyday functioning. Audio and video systems are now integral to NCLT’s proceedings. Treating their failures as minor technical glitches underestimates their impact on hearings, participation and judicial engagement. By focusing on these often ignored aspects of courtroom functioning, my blog seeks to bring attention back to the basics. Without that foundation, even the most advanced technological visions risk remaining disconnected from the realities of courtroom practice.

Listening to Justice: What Audio and Video Glitches Reveal at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)

Table of Contents

I. Abstract

II. Introduction

When the Network Goes Down

Why These Disruptions Matter in a Burdened System

Technical Failures Across Benches

Looking at the Basics before the Future

Conclusion

SHARE

RECENT ARTICLES

Understanding Regulatory Episteme as How Regulators See the World

Understanding Writ Litigation against BBMP : An analysis of 2024 Judgements

ThePrintAM: What does research institute DAKSH’s report say about the state of India’s commercial tribunal system?

Lessons for Judiciary from Space Sector

Bhavya Sudhir

Rohith C H