Delhi High Court supports IVR for emergency calls, citing its crucial role in filtering out non-urgent communications, emphasizing the need for such a mechanism given the prevalence of prank and unintended calls.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
DELHI: Today(on 20th March), The Delhi High Court, led by acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, has delivered a resolute judgment concerning the deployment of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems in handling emergency calls.
Interactive Voice Response (IVR):
IVR (Interactive Voice Response) automates phone interactions, allowing callers to access information or services through pre-recorded messages or text-to-speech prompts. It reduces call volume, improves efficiency, and enhances customer satisfaction by enabling self-service options and routing callers appropriately. IVR has evolved from touch-tone interfaces to advanced systems using natural language processing, enabling more intuitive interactions. Despite its origins in the 1990s, IVR remains a vital tool for businesses, streamlining operations and enhancing the customer experience.
The bench emphasized the importance of the IVR system as a vital filtration tool, aimed at reducing non-urgent communications. They pointed out the prevalence of prank or unintended calls to emergency numbers, highlighting the rationale behind implementing the IVR facility.
The court’s position emphasizes the difficulties faced by emergency services in distinguishing between authentic emergencies and less urgent matters. Additionally, the justices elaborated on the potential outcomes of bypassing the IVR system, highlighting that connecting directly to executives could impose considerable manpower requirements, leading to serious repercussions.
The bench remarked:
“Let the situation stabilize a bit. Your suggestions may be for a perfect system but your request will have unintended effects. The system will collapse. The best cannot be the enemy of the good… The system today may not be perfect but is the best and we can live with the best.”
Ganga Saran filed a lawsuit questioning the use of IVR systems in emergencies. Advocate Deepti Gupta argued that relying solely on IVR technology during emergencies is inadequate, advocating for direct human interaction instead.
Addressing the court, Gupta raised concerns about specific demographics, such as children and visually impaired individuals, who might struggle with IVR instructions during critical moments.
ALSO READ: Flipkart Fined Rs.13,000 by Consumer Court for Unjust iPhone Order Cancellation
Delhi Government Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi defended the current system by highlighting the overwhelming volume of calls received by emergency centers. He stated that out of over 8.2 lakh daily calls, only 17,000 are genuine emergencies, illustrating the challenge of managing such a large volume without an efficient filtering mechanism. Tripathi emphasized that providing human responses to all calls would require an additional workforce of around 10,000 personnel.
