Lawyers will have to choose between profession and children: Another plea filed in Supreme Court against Delhi High Court's physical hearing move

Five women lawyers have moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to resume physical hearing while not giving lawyers the option to argue virtually amid the COVID-19 pandemic..Advocates Amrita Sharma, Saumya Tandon, Padmapriya, Ashmita Narula and Shivani Luthra have assailed the office orders issued by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court..The petitioners pray for the office orders directing resumption of physical hearings to be set aside and issuance of fresh ones allowing lawyers to select the option of virtual appearance in cases..The plea states that there are women and men lawyers, including the present petitioners, having young children doing home schooling/virtual schooling. Due to the current system of virtual hearing in courts, they have been able to discharge their professional duties even while taking care of their children/minors. In this light, it is contended,"If the Impugned office order are given effect to without the option of virtual hearing, then such lawyers shall be constrained to choose between their professional duties and taking care of their young children, or worse be constrained to expose themselves, their children as well as vulnerable members of their families to Covid-19 as the Impugned office order leave them with no alternative.".Women lawyers in particular will be adversely affected by the decision, the plea states."The Impugned office order are going to affect several women lawyers even more adversely who have managed to carry out their professional duties till now under the system of virtual hearing but will now be forced to choose between their family responsibilities including young children and their profession. They will either be forced to return the briefs which is against ethics of the profession or forced to go to courts endangering the health of the young children/old parents.".It is also claimed that advocates cannot effectively represent their clients in virtual hearings while being physically present in court simultaneously. It is thus contended,"Failing to provide any option to the litigant/lawyers to request for virtual hearing in matters listed before physical court or providing an option to join physical court by video conferencing, the Impugned office order impinges upon the right to access to justice of the litigants and the right to life and livelihood of the advocates.".Further, it has been stated that there are many lawyers aged 50 and above and those suffering from co-morbidities and other health-related issues, who would be at risk if physical hearings resume.."The office order will have disastrous effect on the access of justice to litigants on one hand and to the health, safety, security & well being of litigants, advocates, clerks, court staff, support staff and even the judges, and their families", says the plea. .It has been argued that the practice of starting physical hearings is in complete contradiction to all the existing medical and health guidelines. The decision violates "the fundamental rights of the Litigants, Advocates, Court Clerks other support Staffs", the plea states..The plea has been drawn by Advocate Sanjana Saddy and filed by Advocate Sunieta Ojha is a joint effort of Saumya Tandon, Padma Priya, Mrinalini Sen, Naomi Chandra and Amrita Sharma..As per the impugned order, two Division Benches, three Single Benches each on the civil and criminal side, and three Benches to hear original jurisdiction (civil) matters will be holding physical hearings every day at the High Court.Additionally, all the courts of Joint Registrars (Judicial) in the High Court and all the subordinate courts in six District Courts shall hold physical hearings every alternate day from January 18, 2020..Earlier, Advocates Kartik Nayar, Nancy Roy, Sachit Jolly and Amit Bhagat approached the apex court challenging the office order. They have stated in their petition that it was understood that the present system of virtual hearings would come to an end as soon as the vaccinations are done and people are not at risk..[BREAKING] Four advocates move Supreme Court against resumption of physical hearing by Delhi High Court.Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar recently wrote to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court urging him to reconsider resumption of physical hearings in the High Court which are slated to commence on January 18.