"Bar not taken into confidence:" Supreme Court decision to limit physical hearing to hybrid mode challenged by Supreme Court Bar Association

The decision of the Supreme Court to limit physical hearings by laying down a hybrid system which allows lawyers the option to appear virtually as well, has been challenged by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) before the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Bar Association v. Supreme Court of India). .The SCBA has filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) notified by the top court on March 5 laying down the way ahead for hybrid mode. .The petition filed through advocate Rahul Kaushik and settled by Senior Advocate and SCBA President, Vikas Singh, has stated that the SOP for hybrid physical hearing was issued by the registry of the Court without consultation with the Bar even though Bar is an equal stakeholder in the dispensation of the justice delivery system."That the President SCBA had also written a letter dated March 2, 2021 regarding resumption of physical hearing in the Supreme Court. However, the suggestions given have not been take into consideration before issuing the Standard Operating Procedure dated March 5, 2021 for hybrid physical hearing," the petition reads..The plea contends that if virtual hearing is allowed to continue permanently, it will disturb the level playing field in the profession by allowing lawyers to argue from territories where the members of SCBA does not have opportunity to argue due to lack of reciprocity..The petition has highlighted that entry of lawyers into High Security Zone through proximity card remains suspended by virtue of the SOP..Further, registry officials are allowed entry into the High Security Zone though the same is kept suspended insofar as lawyers are concerned. The SOP, the petition has stated, mandates that entry of counsel to the High Security Zone would be through a daily "Special hearing passes" which will be issued by the Registry..This situation could have been easily avoided had the Bar been taken confidence before issuing the SOP, the SCBA has submitted. .The plea has also pointed out how swimming pools, malls and cinema halls have been allowed to function again and marriage functions are also allowed subject to an upper cap of 200 persons. Thus, it is SCBA's case that by restricting entry into court alone, the SOP violates Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.."Judges have a sterile route to and from the court room and there are glass partitions which separate the Judges in the Court room from the Lawyers and Litigants so basically it is the lawyers and litigants who would be at some risk if at all so the SOP dated March 5 ought to have been issued after consulting the Bar and the Bar had already written for the resumption of physical hearing," reads the plea.