Declaring virtual court hearing as fundamental right would be death knell for physical courts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday took a dim view of a plea to declare virtual court hearing as a fundamental right saying that allowing such a plea could prove to be the death knell for physical courts (National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice v. High Court of Uttarakhand) .

. A Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed that employing hybrid method of hearing cases, which gives lawyers the option to appear through virtual medium or physically, has led to lawyers preferring to appear virtually instead of appearing physically.

"If we were to accept what petitioners are praying (declaring virtual court as fundamental right), it would be like sounding a death knell for physical courts," the Bench remarked.

It further observed that when hybrid option was given, people were becoming comfortable within the confines of their offices and thus no one was coming to court to argue cases.

" For the past few months, we've made it optional- given an option, people are very comfortable in the confines of their offices. If there is a happy option, lawyers can appear from Mussoorie and Goa ?" remarked the top court.

. The top court was hearing a plea by a body of litigants and two eminent citizens seeking access to justice through virtual courts as a matter of fundamental right for the litigants.

The plea filed through advocate Mrigank Prabhakar also sought a directive to the High Courts to refrain from discontinuing with the option of video conference and virtual court hearings without the permission of the Supreme Court’s e-committee.

. Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Bench should not approach the case from the lens of lawyers alone but should also take into account the plight of the litigants who have difficulty in approaching courts from far flung areas.

Virtual court would be a solution to that, it was submitted.

The petition also specifically challenged the decisions taken by Uttarakhand and Gujarat High Courts to discontinue hybrid hearings.

. "There is another dimension. What if the citizen wants to access the justice himself? I am not at all saying that we stop physical hearing. I am just saying please keep hybrid hearing open," argued Swarup.

. To this Justice Rao said, " There are many difficulties. We tried this. One lawyer is arguing in court, one from his office. There are problems from our side and the lawyers. When Mr. Manoj Swarup is here in Court and he makes submissions looking into our eyes, its better. We are really in a quandary as to how physical hearing will start. Because we have tried hybrid, but people are not coming. "

. The Court also said that this issue was different from the issue of live telecast of court proceedings.

"It is one thing to say that there should be a telecast of court proceedings, quite another another thing to say that these institutions should be shut down due to (violation of) fundamental rights," the Court said.

. The top court eventually issued notice in the mater but stated that the petitioners should submit suggestions on how they want to go about the plea and the way ahead.

The matter will now be heard after four weeks.

This is the second such plea filed on the same issue.

On September 6, the top court had issued notice to the Central government, four High Courts, the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on a plea challenging the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to revert to full physical functioning from August 24 to the exclusion of virtual mode of hearing cases.

That petition also sought a declaration that right to participate in court proceedings through virtual courts via video conference is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution.

. [Read Order]

. [Read Live Thread]

. [Read Order]

Declaring virtual court hearing as fundamental right would be death knell for physical courts: Supreme Court

Shagun Suryam

Related Stories