On Monday, the Delhi High Court dismissed public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to make virtual hearings the norm in courts throughout the capital. The petitioner was informed that the issue is being looked into on an administrative level by a bench consisting of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.
Advocate Mujeeb Ur Rehman, the petitioner, appeared in person and argued that switching to virtual hearings on a permanent basis would allow the judiciary to better optimise its time and save both time and money.
Advocate Mujeeb Ur Rehman, the petitioner, appeared in person and argued that switching to virtual hearings on a permanent basis would allow the judiciary to better optimise its time and save both time and money.
The use of a hybrid method of hearing cases, which allows lawyers to appear virtually or physically, has led to lawyers preferring the former, according to a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai. This was the second time a similar plea had been filed on the same issue.
The Supreme Court had issued notice to the Central government, four High Courts, the Bar Council of India (BCI), and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on September 6 in response to a petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision to revert to full physical operation from August 24 to the exclusion of virtual hearings.
A declaration that the right to participate in court proceedings through virtual courts is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution was also sought in the petition.
“… we see no reason to entertain the petition, primarily because the High Court is already working on the issue, and the High Court makes its decision on an administrative level after deliberations with committees that include sitting judges of the Court. The problem in question is currently being investigated. The administrative orders are also being modified in light of the current state of the pandemic. As a result, we don’t see why the petition should be considered at this time “In its order, the Court stated
The high court resumed full physical operations on March 2, with the option of appearing via video conferencing, which had previously been restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Advocate Rehman argued in the plea that because it is not “always necessary to be physically present,” counsel, litigants, parties, and courts could opt for virtual hearings to avoid unnecessary physical contact with the general public while the COVID-19 pandemic was still ongoing.