Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts

with Case Laws

Muhammad Baqir

(BS-CRI-0187)

Ahsan Ali

(BS-CRI-0221)

Submitted to : Mam Sanobar Shah

 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

Abstract
The integration of modern technology in court proceedings has revolutionized the

presentation and evaluation of evidence, impacting the judicial system globally. This research

focuses on the jurisprudence surrounding the use of modern technology in courts, with a

specific emphasis on Pakistan. It explores historical developments and current practices to

identify strengths and weaknesses in the existing legal framework, proposing improvements

to enhance efficiency, transparency, and access to justice. The research examines technology-

related initiatives from other countries and analyzes specific projects implemented by the

Court in Pakistan, aiming to reduce case backlogs and improve transparency in the Pakistani

judicial system. The admissibility of evidence collected through modern devices is a crucial

aspect investigated, considering the risks of tampering and the need for forensic examination

to ensure integrity. The study also explores the legal framework governing the admissibility

of forensic evidence and protocols for recording evidence through video links. The research

highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the need for digital

transformation in the judicial system, emphasizing the potential benefits of technology in

both criminal and civil courts. By examining successful initiatives and addressing challenges

hindering the adoption of technology, this research offers a roadmap for the successful

implementation of technology in Pakistan's judicial system.

Keywords: modern technology, jurisprudence, legal framework, efficiency,

transparency, access to justice, case backlogs, admissibility, digital transformation, COVID-

19 pandemic.

2
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

Introduction
The modernization of technology has had a profound impact on various aspects of

society, and the judicial system is no exception. The integration of modern devices and

technological advancements in court proceedings has significantly influenced the way

evidence is presented and evaluated. The use of modern devices in court proceedings can be

traced back to the introduction of electric devices for presenting evidence internationally.

Acts such as the ESIGN Act section 106 and the UETA section 2 provided definitions and

recognition for electronic records and evidence. Electric evidence, defined as any probative

value communicated through electronic means, began to play a significant role in criminal

tracing procedures (ESIGN Act, UETA).

The early adoption of modern devices in courts can be observed during the American

Civil War when Morse codes were used for telegraphic communication. These electric

telegraphic messages were considered enforceable agreements and were recognized as such

in legal cases. Subsequently, fax machines gained popularity in the 1980s for their fast

delivery and document confidentiality features. Various courts in different jurisdictions

acknowledged the enforceability of electronically signed agreements and the use of faxed

documents as evidence. The utilization of modern technology in courts expanded further with

the advent of email communications, electronic signatures, and digital document signing.

These modes of communication and evidence recording became crucial elements in resolving

legal cases, both in favor of and against the individuals involved. Notably, the United States

and Ireland were the first to sign an electronic commerce agreement, setting the stage for the

acceptance and promotion of electronic signatures.

3
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

In Pakistan, the recognition and acceptance of modern devices in court proceedings

have also evolved. The apex courts in Pakistan have acknowledged the importance of

scientific evidence and its relevance in judicial practices. The judiciary system recognizes

that certain cases require expert evidence and the assistance of modern devices. Under Article

59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, globally accepted modern devices are permitted as

evidence in Pakistan (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984). The Pakistani judiciary system is

concerned about the tampering of electronic evidence and the challenges posed by advanced

technologies and cybercrimes. Courts are cautious about accepting audio or visual evidence

without proper verification to ensure authenticity (PLD 2016 LHR 570). However,

advancements in the legal framework, such as the addition of Article 164 to the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order 1984, have facilitated the admissibility of evidence produced through modern

devices (Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984). Despite the acceptance of modern devices as

evidence, there have been legislative and procedural hurdles in their implementation.

Uncertainties surrounding unsigned and unattested evidence presented through electronic

means were addressed by incorporating the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002 into the

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 (Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002). This allowed

courts to consider electronic communication devices, including telex, fax, radio, television,

telegram, and phonogram, as part of the evidence.

The integration of modern technology in courts has transformed the way evidence is

presented and evaluated. It has become imperative for the judicial system to adapt to

innovative technologies to ensure efficiency, transparency, and access to justice. This

research aims to analyze the jurisprudence behind the use of modern technology in courts,

with a specific focus on Pakistan. By examining historical developments and current

practices, this study seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing legal

framework and propose improvements to strengthen the judicial procedure and enhance

4
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

evidence representation and acceptance in a more technological and modern manner. The

challenges faced by the Pakistani judicial system, including the backlog of cases and the need

for efficiency and transparency, can be addressed through the effective integration of digital

technology.

By studying technology-related initiatives undertaken by other countries and

examining specific projects and initiatives implemented by the High Court of Sindh as a case

study, this research aims to explore the potential of digital technology in reducing case

backlogs and improving transparency and access to justice in Pakistan's judicial system. One

of the key aspects that will be explored is the admissibility of evidence collected through

modern devices. With advancements in scientific fields, tampering with electronic evidence

has become easier, raising doubts about its acceptability in courts of law. To ensure the

integrity of such evidence, it is crucial to subject it to forensic examination before validating

it as proof (PLD 2016 LHR 570).

The research will also delve into the legal framework governing the admissibility of

forensic evidence and the protocols to be followed while recording evidence through video

links. By examining relevant legislation, such as Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order

1984, and the incorporation of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002, the study aims to

provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape surrounding modern devices'

evidence. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 accelerated the need for online

operations and digital transformation in public services, including the judicial system. This

sudden shift highlighted the importance of reimagining how justice is administered and the

potential benefits of technology in both criminal and civil courts. While media coverage has

primarily focused on digital transformation in criminal courts, this research acknowledges the

rapid deployment of innovative technology in the civil legal system as well. By exploring

successful initiatives and projects implemented by the High Court of Sindh and studying the

5
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

challenges hindering the adoption of technology in judicial operations, this research aims to

provide a roadmap for the successful implementation of technology in Pakistan's judicial

system.

Research Questions

(i) Why is it important to integrate modern technology into judicial processes?

(ii) What are the impacts of modern technology on the judicial systems of

different countries?

(iii) What types of modern technology are used in the courts in Pakistan, and do

the courts accept digital evidence as primary evidence?

(iv) What challenges do the courts in Pakistan face when allowing the use of

digital evidence in court proceedings?

(v) What is required to make the judicial system more effective by integrating

modern technology?

Literature Review
Nigerian Justice M. D. Abubakar argued in his paper (Abubakar, 2018), Nigeria -

the integration of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into the judicial

processes has been contemplated to address delays and inefficiencies. The application of ICT

can improve efficiency, facilitate research, and enhance information retrieval, reducing stress

for judges. Implementing ICT can minimize issues of inefficiency, inaccuracy, lack of

transparency, and integrity, leading to delays in dispensing justice. The use of courtroom

technology for presenting evidence highlights the need for a technological revolution in the

justice system. It is crucial for the Nigerian Judiciary and the legal system to adopt ICT to

enhance service delivery. Digital evidence, including electronic information stored on

electronic devices like computers and mobile phones, can play a significant role in

6
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

investigations and contribute to the delivery of justice (workshop organized by The

National Judicial Institute in 2018). Likewise, Thomas R. Moore argued that, in today's

technology-driven world, lawyers need to stay updated and technologically competent to

better serve their clients. To effectively assist clients with digital assets and online problems,

lawyers need to embrace technology's integration into the legal field. Factors such as artificial

intelligence, limited access to affordable legal services, digital assets, and unknown future

developments are likely to increase the pressure on lawyers to stay updated on modern

technology. Similarly, lawyers should stay vigilant and consider these developments to better

serve their clients (Moore, 2019). In particular, the courts in the USA have been adopting the

use of Information Technology for several years now. Similarly in the UK, the use of IT has

been developed extensively and supported in many judicial processes. In Australia, "Cyber

Courts" are courts that heavily rely on technology throughout the legal process. By

embracing technology, these courts have successfully decreased the amount of time it takes to

resolve cases (Anonymous, 2015). Additionally, Gary E. Marchant in his paper, stated that

Modern technology has introduced new types of evidence that pose challenges for judges and

juries in legal proceedings. It includes social media evidence, surveillance camera footage,

facial recognition, and forensic DNA analysis in criminal cases. Modern technologies are

bringing forth various types of evidence that pose challenges for judges and juries in

litigation. One example is the use of neuroimaging, which involves examining the brain

through advanced imaging techniques. In some criminal cases, brain-imaging evidence is

presented to argue that the defendant lacked the cognitive ability required for criminal intent

(mens rea) or to show potential brain damage that might lessen their criminal responsibility.

Similarly, genetics is becoming increasingly important in legal proceedings, with various

implications for the judicial system. While judges are familiar with the use of DNA for

identifying individuals in criminal cases, there are numerous other applications of genetic

7
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

evidence in court. For example, DNA analysis is now greatly influencing cases involving

paternity, immigration, and food poisoning. In these instances, DNA provides a reliable and

legally significant method for determining human relationships and identifying microbial

sources. Essentially, genetic evidence is being used to provide accurate and relevant

information in a wide range of legal cases. Moreover, Location-tracking technology presents

several challenges in court proceedings. The GPS chip in a person's cell phone, as well as cell

tower triangulation, can track and record their location. In a Landmark 2018 ruling called the

Carpenter decision, the U.S. The Supreme Court determined that law enforcement authorities

must obtain a warrant to access continuous location data collected over an extended period

using cell tower records. In simpler terms, the court established that the police cannot access

detailed location information from cell tower records without first obtaining a warrant

(Merchant, 2019).

Apart from this, during the COVID-19 pandemic, courts around the world, including

those in the United States, acknowledged the significance of incorporating modern

technology into their operations. The pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital processes,

as all fifty states and Washington D.C. implemented rules to govern online operations.

Virtual hearings and e-filing tools became essential, allowing litigants to submit documents

electronically and verify them through e-notarization systems. Even eviction cases saw a

significant shift, with 82% of state courts allowing or encouraging remote hearings. Michigan

and Texas, which had rarely conducted video hearings before the pandemic, conducted

thousands during a specific period in 2020. While some states had already adopted electronic

document submission, the lockdowns necessitated the adoption of additional tools to ensure

court proceedings could continue. These changes reflect the courts' prioritization of public

needs (Reader, 2021). Similarly in Pakistan, the adoption of technology in the judicial system

has been relatively recent. E-Court was implemented for the first time in the history of the

8
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

Pakistan Judiciary, allowing statements of witnesses to be recorded online via Skype to

ensure inexpensive and speedy justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also conducted a case

in 2019 with witness appearances via video link. In 2020, High Courts and some subordinate

courts began hearing cases online through video links due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, e-filing for new cases is not yet prevalent in the Pakistani Judiciary. Overall, the

use of technology in lower courts is minimal, with manual record-keeping being common.

The pandemic and subsequent lockdowns highlighted the need for technological

infrastructure in the legal system as many courts lacked the means to expedite virtual justice.

Courts were partially closed, and hearings were often canceled. Some high courts issued

advisories to prioritize urgent cases and limit physical contact. The use of technology is

crucial to reduce case backlogs and improve the efficiency of the judicial process in the

future (Khan & Ali, 2021).

In particular, digital evidence holds significant importance in modern society due to

its diversity, precision, and complexity. Both domestic and international laws recognize the

admissibility of digital evidence. It is defined as digital evidence encompasses any form of

evidence that is obtained from data produced or stored in devices that rely on software or are

connected to computer systems or networks. This can include various types of electronic

information such as files, documents, images, videos, emails, text messages, or any other data

that is relevant to a legal investigation or proceeding (Council of Europe - Highlights 2019,

2020). Initially, in Pakistan, the usage of digital evidence was not common in court

proceedings. However various judicial precedents have elevated the status of digital

evidence, recognizing its importance in criminal cases. Likewise, a court case in Pakistan

involved an accusation of recording and sharing a friend's explicit video without permission.

The case was proven using digital evidence, including the accused's phone being connected to

the victim's internet browser and the social media connections receiving nude images from

9
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

the accused's phone. Nevertheless, it is still considered circumstantial evidence and requires

additional supporting evidence for credibility. Similarly in the judgment of 2021 SCMR 873,

the Hon’ Supreme Court of Pakistan held that video evidence is a significant piece of

evidence, however, there are certain requirements that should be made before presenting the

video evidence. Firstly it will be essential to explain how it was obtained or what was its

origin or source. Secondly, a forensic report demonstrating the video's lack of editing should

be presented. Video footage will not be admissible as evidence if the aforementioned

requirements are not met. In the same way, previously mobile SMS was considered to be

weak evidence. However, Lahore High Court in its Landmark judgment of 2021 MLD 1415

laid down a new rule. The LHC held that The SMS record is a strong piece of evidence under

Article 164 of QSO 1984. Such evidence will be deemed primary evidence, which entitles the

court to render a decision based on it (Hameed, Qaiser, & Qaiser, 2021).

Moreover, several laws have been enacted to accommodate the use of digital

evidence, including amendments to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the promulgation of

the Electronic Transaction Ordinance 2002, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016,

etc. However, the evidential value of digital evidence in court is not definite and often

requires additional supporting evidence, making it rare for courts to solely rely on digital

evidence during trial proceedings (Zahoor, Arif, & Bannian, 2022). The Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Pakistan in the case Mian Khalid Pervaiz v. The State (2021 SCMR 522) held that

digital evidence was admissible under Article 164, Article 46-A, and 78-A of the QSO.

Additionally, the procedure to receive and prove such documentary evidence is provided

under the provisions of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance 2002. Similarly, in a case,

Shoaib Ahmad v. State (2019 PCRLJ 57) heard by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, the

admissibility of evidence from modern devices was accepted under Article 164 of the QSO.

In this particular case, the crime was detected through CCTV footage, which was considered

10
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

valid evidence, leading to the arrest of the accused. More broadly, Judge Mr. Shahid Kareem

of the Lahore High Court recently ruled that electronic documents will be treated as primary

evidence, but they must still be subject to cross-examination. In courts worldwide, there are

certain standards that need to be met for admitting electronic evidence, including authenticity,

reliability, and admissibility. To meet these standards, there should be a chain of custody,

ensuring that the evidence has not been tampered with or destroyed during the collection

process. Additionally, the first responders or individuals involved in collecting the evidence

play an important role. In addition to this, certain guidelines have been developed by

American Law Reports and UK police Chiefs for handling digital evidence in police

investigations. According to these guidelines, all procedures should be documented, as digital

evidence can be easily destroyed or hidden. They also emphasize that a third party should be

able to achieve the same results as the initial investigators, ensuring transparency. The rules

that apply to traditional evidence should also apply to digital evidence. Lastly, proper

documentation should be prepared alongside the final report to provide a comprehensive

record of the investigation and the digital evidence involved. Likewise in the case of 2019

PLD 675, (Rana, 2021) it was held that the admissibility of audiotapes or video recordings as

evidence requires verification and forensic testing to ensure their authenticity. This

requirement is stated in Article 164 of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act.

Correspondingly, the amendments made to the QSO through the ETO pertain to the

admissibility of such evidence, ensuring it can be presented in court. However, the court still

requires additional supporting evidence to accept and give weight to the digital evidence.

Precisely, the laws in Pakistan allow for the admission of digital evidence in court, but it

needs to be verified and tested to establish its authenticity. This shows that Pakistani courts

are placing importance on the probative value or reliability of digital evidence rather than its

mere admissibility (Ahmed, Zaryab, & Kanwal, 2022). Furthermore, in the Landmark

11
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

judgment of Meera Shafi vs. Ali Zafar 2022(SC), the petitioner has been residing in Canada

since 2016 with her family, including two children, only visiting Pakistan when necessary for

work-related reasons. If the petitioner is required to physically appear in Pakistan for cross-

examination, it would cause significant delays in the case and impose unreasonable expenses

and inconveniences on her. Therefore, she requests to conduct her cross-examination through

video conferencing. The court recognizes that Article 164 of the QSO serves as a gateway for

modern science and technology to enter our courtrooms. It emphasizes that the law must not

remain stagnant or outdated while society progresses. In today's age of information

technology, utilizing such technology in courts can greatly improve the efficiency of the

judicial process and reduce delays in delivering justice. The court believes that embracing

and employing technological advancements in case management and court proceedings is

necessary to dispense justice more efficiently and promptly. The court acknowledged that this

interpretation of the law promotes access to justice, ensures a fair trial, and facilitates

affordable and swift justice, which aligns with the fundamental rights and principles

enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court provides

few grounds to allow such testimony; the courts should assess whether the witness's

testimony is crucial for a just decision and whether requiring their physical presence would

cause unreasonable delays, expenses, or inconveniences. Apart from this, when a witness

attends court through video conferencing, both the judge and those present in court can see

and hear the witness, and vice versa. The judge ensures that the witness is present freely and

not under the influence of anyone else, whether physically or virtually. The court can verify

the witness's identity and confront them with relevant documents. In terms of recording

evidence and fulfilling the purpose of witness attendance, there is no significant difference

between physical and virtual attendance. Therefore, the concept of "attendance" in the rules

can be extended to include virtual attendance through video conferencing. Moreover, in the

12
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

light of the Quran and Sunnah, the courts recognized the importance of evidence and expert

assistance in certain cases. Similarly in PLD 2010 FSC 215, FSC relied upon the Holy Quran

and Sunnah which do not prohibit the use of scientific and analytical methods to discover the

truth; in fact, they recommend the exploration and investigation of truth. Similarly, courts

accept advanced evidence in cases related to the offense of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)

Ordinance 1979, including the use of DNA testing. However, the judiciary is cautious about

tampering with such evidence and devices due to advanced technologies and cybercrimes. It

is important to be aware of the potential for manipulation, such as through the use of

Photoshop techniques, when accepting audio or visual evidence. In the recent case of PLD

2016 LHR 570, it was highlighted that electronic evidence should be cross-examined in court

to verify its authenticity instead of accepting it without question (Saeed & Gillani, 2021).

Methodology
The methodology employed in this research involves a comprehensive review and

analysis of various articles and case laws from jurisdictions across the world. A systematic

literature review was conducted to identify relevant scholarly articles, books, research papers,

and legal publications discussing the use of modern technology in courts. Additionally, a

thorough examination of case laws was conducted, focusing on landmark judgments,

appellate decisions, and significant legal opinions that have shaped jurisprudence in this field.

The collected data from these sources was then subjected to qualitative analysis. Thematic

coding techniques were used to identify key concepts, principles, and arguments related to

the use of modern technology in courtrooms. Comparative analysis was also performed to

identify similarities, differences, and emerging patterns across jurisdictions. The findings

from the qualitative and comparative analysis were synthesized to develop a comprehensive

understanding of the jurisprudence surrounding the use of modern technology in courts. The

13
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

limitations of the research, such as the availability of data and potential biases in the selected

sources, were acknowledged throughout the study.

The jurisprudence behind the incorporation of modern technology into the operations

of the courts is to make legal processes more efficient, transparent, and cost-effective. Many

developed or developing countries like the USA and China have successfully implemented

modern technological initiatives in their judicial systems. For instance, Chinese courts use

artificial intelligence to analyze legal documents and help judges make decisions. Similarly,

in the case of Maryland v. Craig (497 U.S. 836, 1990), which is a significant case on this

subject, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that recording evidence through video

conferencing does not violate the Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause). This means that

it is acceptable to use video technology to present witness testimony, even if the witness is

not physically present in the courtroom. Likewise, under international law, provisions exist

that allow a witness who cannot physically appear before a court to provide their testimony

through a video link. This practice is observed, for instance, in the International Criminal

Court (ICC) (Maryland v. Craig, 1990).

On the other hand in Pakistan Article 2(1) (c) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

mentions the term "evidence," but it's worth noting that the law did not provide a specific

definition for it. Instead, it stated that evidence “includes” a statement that the court “permits

or requires” to be made and/or all documents produced (Art.2(1)(c), 1984). Likewise the

purpose of using the word "includes" is to ensure that the scope of what can be considered

evidence is not limited strictly to statements and documents (Muhammad Sarwar Khan Vs.

Salamat Ali, 2012), but can be expanded to include other relevant information or materials

that the court deems appropriate. Furthermore the inclusion of the word "etc." in Article 164

of the QSO expands the scope of the statute to encompass modern devices. This means that

the law covers not only the specific devices mentioned but also includes all other advanced

14
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

scientific devices of the current era (Zahir Hussain and 4 others V. Bashir Muhammad and 5

others, 2013). In simpler terms, the QSO gives the court the discretion to decide whether

evidence can be presented using modern devices. Similarly, the Hon’ble Peshawar High

Court in the case Muhammad Israr v. The State 2019, determined that if there are no specific

procedures mentioned in the Criminal or Civil Procedure Code, the court can use its

discretion to determine an appropriate method for recording evidence. Likewise, the matter

came before the Karachi High Court in Shaikh Aijazur Rehman v. The State (NAB) and

another (PLD 2006 Karachi 629) interpreted the law dynamically so that it may serve the

needs of the society, allowing for a broader understanding of the term "presence" in Section

353 of the code to include video conferencing as a means of recording evidence. Under

Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, modern devices and globally accepted

evidence are permitted in Pakistan. The courts also recognize the importance of proper

evidence and expert assistance in certain cases (Art.59, 1984). In the case cited; PLD 2010

FSC 215, FSC states that the Holy Quran and Sunnah do not prohibit the use of scientific and

analytical methods to discover the truth. The judiciary allows advanced evidence, such as

DNA tests, in cases related to offenses like Zina. However, the courts are cautious about the

authenticity of electronic evidence due to advanced technologies and cybercrimes. They

emphasize cross-examining electronic evidence in court to verify its authenticity rather than

blindly accepting it.

Correspondingly, provinces are also taking steps in integrating modern technology in

courts. Section 10 of the Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018, allows for the recording of

evidence through video links. The witnesses who are unable to physically attend court

proceedings can still participate remotely using video technology. The High Court of Sindh

has introduced video conferencing technology for virtual court hearings. This means that

litigants can appear in court proceedings without actually being present in the courtroom if

15
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

deemed necessary. This has been especially helpful during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it

reduces the need for physical attendance and lowers the risk of exposure to the virus. It has

also addressed challenges related to distance and travel costs, making it easier for people in

remote areas to participate in court hearings. Additionally, the High Court has established e-

Court centers, which are equipped with technology to provide litigants with various services.

These services include electronic filing of documents, online payment of court fees, and the

ability to track the progress of their cases online. These e-Court centers make the legal

process more accessible and convenient for litigants by leveraging technology. Furthermore,

Justice Rooh-ul-Amin Khan stated in Muhammad Israr v. The State 2019, in KPK all the

courts in the District Judiciary have been equipped with modern digital and technological

facilities. Moreover, it was decided that the legal rules and requirements that apply to

witnesses who are physically present in the courtroom also apply to witnesses who provide

their testimony through a video link. Furthermore, in the case of Salman Akram Raja and

another v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203), the Supreme Court of Pakistan issued a

directive stating that, when deemed suitable, the testimony of rape victims should be obtained

via video conferencing. This is to protect the victims, especially juveniles, from having to

physically appear in court and face the accused (Salman Akram Raja, 2013). Similarly in the

case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. the State (PLD 2018 Islamabad High Court 148),

allowed the recording of evidence via video link from the United Kingdom. This was done in

the presence of authorized attorneys or representatives, ensuring that the witnesses were not

under any pressure or influence. Precisely the courts are recognizing the benefits of using

video conferencing and other technological tools to protect vulnerable witnesses, expedite

legal proceedings, and facilitate access to justice. These developments indicate a willingness

to adapt to the changing times and leverage technology for a more efficient and effective

judicial process. In the case of Meera Shafi vs. Ali Zafar (2022 SC), the petitioner residing in

16
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

Canada requested to cross-examine through video conferencing to avoid delays and expenses.

The court recognized the importance of utilizing technology in courtrooms for efficient and

prompt justice delivery (Rao, 2022). The court ruled that virtual testimony is allowed if

crucial for a just decision and if physical attendance would cause unreasonable delays.

However, when it comes to the actual trial of a case involving digital evidence, there is still

some uncertainty regarding its evidentiary value. In practice, many courts require additional

evidence to support and validate digital evidence. Therefore, it is rare to see courts fully

relying on digital evidence without seeking corroborating evidence. Similarly, in the case of

Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State and another [2016] YLR 62, the Trial Court denied the

accused's request for a copy of a compact disc (CD) and USB containing crucial evidence. It

has been argued that it violates constitutional rights and fair trial norms. The court's refusal

hindered the accused's ability to defend based on the evidence provided. However, in

Muhammad Sadiq Husnain v. The State [2016] P Cr. L J 1390, a confession recorded on a

CD was deemed admissible evidence according to Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,

1984. The recorded individuals were convicted based on the evidence, and the court upheld

the decision.

Furthermore, the polygraph test is a modern forensic method used to assess a person's

capacity for lying, but its results should not be seen as an admission of guilt (Husnain

Mustafa v. The State, 2019). It operates on the assumption that individuals experience

physiological stress responses when lying about personally significant matters (Wilcox,

2000). The test collects physiological data from the body, involving a pre-test interview, chart

collection phase, and data analysis phase. However, polygraph tests are widely regarded as

unacceptable worldwide, including in the USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Likewise in

Pakistan, the case of "Muhammad Asif v. State" ([2008] MLD 1385) dismissed polygraph

tests as unreliable and inadmissible in criminal cases. Similarly, in United States v. Scheffer

17
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

(523, U.S. 303 (1998), the court ruled that polygraph tests are only considered an opinion and

lack the admissibility of concrete evidence like fingerprints or DNA. Ultimately, the decision

to admit polygraph test results lies at the discretion of the trial judge (United States v.

Scheffer, 1998). Lastly, Fingerprints have been recognized as universally acceptable

evidence, as established in the case of Bahader Khan v. The State and another [2012] P Cr. L

J 24. However, the reliability of fingerprint evidence can be called into question when certain

factors are present. In the case of Mst. Rasool Bibi v. Additional District Judge, Sialkot

[2006], it was determined that a positive fingerprint report provided by an expert held no

legal value because the report was not tendered as evidence and the expert was not cross-

examined. This case highlights the importance of proper presentation and examination of

fingerprint evidence in order to establish its credibility in court.

Despite the aforementioned efforts, significant challenges hinder the full realization of

technology integration in Pakistan's legal system. However one of the major obstacles is the

lack of digital literacy among judges, lawyers, and court staff, leading to resistance to

adopting new technologies. Similarly the misuse of resources due to manual practices and the

absence of training programs further hinder progress. Likewise, inadequate investment in

basic infrastructure and the absence of transparent systems for performance appraisal leave

management, and tracking requests contribute to inefficiency and demotivation. Apart from

this, the high cost of implementing new technologies, limited budget, and insufficient

political support pose additional challenges. Moreover, data security and privacy concerns

demand appropriate measures to safeguard sensitive information within the judicial system.

Therefore, addressing these challenges is essential for the effective integration of technology

into Pakistan's legal system.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

18
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

 Arrange training programs while ensuring diversity and inclusion, to enhance the

digital literacy of legal professionals and court staff. This could involve providing

online courses, workshops, and other learning opportunities to improve their

knowledge and skills.

 The development of digital culture and mindset can be fostered by setting up special

departments within the judicial system that focus on the integration of digital

technologies in the administration of justice.

 To create public-private partnerships to fund technology upgrades and infrastructure

improvements. This can help to reduce the financial burden on the judiciary and make

it easier to implement new technologies.

 Moreover, the introduction of a dedicated technology fund by the government of

Pakistan can help to accelerate the implementation of digital solutions and encourage

a culture of innovation.

 The judiciary can work to ensure data security and privacy by implementing

appropriate measures such as encryption, firewalls, and secure cloud-based storage

solutions. Additionally, the development of legal frameworks and policies that

regulate the use of digital technologies and data protection can help to address these

concerns.

 To facilitate technology integration in judicial operations in Pakistan, it is crucial to

first upgrade court infrastructure, including buildings, furniture, and fixtures, and

install high-speed internet connectivity along with the latest hardware and software.

 Furthermore, it is important to initiate awareness campaigns aimed at educating the

legal community about the advantages of technology in the judicial system. Such

campaigns would encourage the adoption of technology and challenge any resistance

to change among legal professionals.

19
Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

 To streamline case management and enhance information exchange among courts, it

is crucial to establish a centralized database. This database would effectively manage

case information, minimize redundancy, and improve accuracy, thereby enabling

judges to easily access pertinent case details.

 To streamline and accelerate the filing process, the implementation of e-filing systems

for case document submission is essential. Additionally, developing a mobile app can

enhance convenience and accessibility to the judicial system for litigants and lawyers,

simplifying their access to relevant services.

 In order to minimize the requirement for physical presence in courtrooms and enable

virtual hearings, the integration of video conferencing technology is crucial. This

implementation would not only alleviate the backlog of cases but also enhance access

to justice for individuals residing in remote areas.

 It is important to offer incentives to lawyers and judges to encourage the adoption of

digital technology. These incentives could take the form of recognition or financial

rewards, motivating them to embrace and effectively utilize the latest available

technologies.

 Implement robust data privacy and security measures to protect sensitive information

processed and stored by court technology systems. Develop guidelines for data

encryption, access controls, audit trails, and regular security audits to safeguard

against unauthorized access, data breaches, or tampering.

 Regularly evaluate the effectiveness and impact of modern technology solutions in

courts. Collect feedback from users, monitor system performance, and conduct

research to identify areas of improvement. This iterative process will help refine the

policies and technologies, ensuring they meet the evolving needs of the legal system.

20
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

The research on the jurisprudence of the use of modern technology in courts reveals a

global trend toward incorporating technological advancements into the legal system.

Countries like the USA and China have successfully implemented technologies such as

artificial intelligence and video conferencing to enhance efficiency and transparency in their

judicial processes. Similarly, international courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC)

recognize the value of video testimony for witnesses who cannot physically appear in court.

In Pakistan, while the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not explicitly define modern

technology as evidence, it provides flexibility for the courts to decide the admissibility of

evidence obtained through such devices. Recent cases, including those from the Peshawar

High Court and Karachi High Court, demonstrate a dynamic interpretation of the law to

accommodate video conferencing as a means of recording evidence. Provinces like Punjab

and Sindh have also taken steps to integrate modern technology, such as video links and e-

Court centers, to make court proceedings more accessible and convenient for litigants.

However, challenges persist, including a lack of digital literacy among legal professionals,

resource constraints, data security concerns, and the need for infrastructure upgrades. Policy

recommendations to address these challenges include providing training programs, fostering

a digital culture, establishing public-private partnerships, creating a technology fund,

ensuring data security and privacy, upgrading court infrastructure, raising awareness,

implementing centralized databases and e-filing systems, enabling virtual hearings through

video conferencing, offering incentives to adopt technology, and regularly evaluating the

effectiveness of technology solutions. By addressing these recommendations, Pakistan can

overcome obstacles and fully harness the potential of modern technology to enhance its legal

system, improve access to justice, and streamline court processes.

21
Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

22
 Jurisprudence of the Use of Modern Technology in Courts with Case Laws

References
Abubakar, M. D. (2018). Impact of Technology on the Law and Court Process. Edo

Judiciary, 1-7.

Ahmed, G., Zaryab, K. M., & Kanwal, F. (2022). Reforms in the Criminal Justice System of

Pakistan. Blackstone Law Journal, 6-10.

Anonymous. (2015). Use of Technology in Judicial Process and Alternative. Dispute

Resolution, 1-8.

Art.2(1)(c), 1714 (All Courts of Pakistan September 15, 1984).

Art.59, SC 381 (All Courts of Pakistan Semptember 15, 1984).

Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2016). 10 Law and Technology in Civil Judicial Procedures. The

Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology, 246-248.

(2020). Council of Europe - Highlights 2019. Brussels: SPDP.

Hameed, U., Qaiser, Z., & Qaiser, K. (2021). Admissibility of Digital Evidence: A

perspective of Pakistani. Pakistan Social Sciences Review, 1-13.

Khan, M. A., & Ali, B. (2021). Electronic Court System and Speedy Justice: A Comparative

Critical Analysis of Legal Systems in Pakistan, Malaysia, and India. Journal of Law

and Social Policy, 1-25.

Maryland v. Craig, 836 (U.S. Supreme Court June 27, 1990).

Merchant, G. E. (2019). Emerging Technologies and the Courts. American Judges

Association, 1-9.

Moore, T. R. (2019). The Upgraded Lawyer: Modern Technology and Its Impact on the.

University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 1-32.

Muhammad Sarwar Khan Vs. Salamat Ali, S.C. 241 (Supreme Court June 23, 2012).

23
 Conclusion and Policy Recommendation

Rana, A. A. (2021). Admissibility of Evidence Produced via Modern Devices and

Techniques: A Look in Pakistani Prospective. International Journal of Research, 67-

77.

Rao, S. (2022, November 22). SC accepts plea for recording cross-examination through

video link. Retrieved from The Nation: https://www.nation.com.pk/22-Nov-2022/sc-

accepts-plea-for-recording-cross-examination-through-video-link

Reader, J. B. (2021, December 1). How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic

Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations. Retrieved from Pew Trusts:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2021/12/how-courts-

embraced-technology-met-the-pandemic-challenge-and-revolutionized-their-

operations

Saeed, M. A., & Gillani, A. H. (2021). Evidential representation of using the modern devices

and decisionmaking feasibility in Pakistan. Journal of Law & Social Studies, 79-96.

United States v. Scheffer, 303 (United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces March

31, 1998).

Zahir Hussain and 4 others V. Bashir Muhammad and 5 others, 377 (Sindh High Court

August 29, 2013).

Zahoor, R., Arif, S. W., & Bannian, B. (2022). Digital Evidence and its Admissibility under

Pakistani Law. Journal of Development and Social Sciences, 51-60.

24