The Supreme Court today disposed of the petitions challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to resume physical hearings amid the COVID-19 pandemic..When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that there was a meeting with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court scheduled at 4 pm today..In this light, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde said that the Court would dispose of the matter, and that the petitioners could move the Delhi High Court thereafter. When Sibal sought liberty to approach the apex court again, CJI Bobde said,"No no no, you are not welcome here again. Thank God you mentioned this (meeting with Registrar General).".Even as Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra sought permission to be heard tomorrow, CJI Bobde said,"We trust the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court will take a proper decision.".On a related note, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh brought up the topic of resumption of physical hearings at the Supreme Court. To his query on when the same would happen, CJI Bobde replied,"We also want to come to back to action like we did before. But not without medical opinion on board.".Singh then sought to highlight the problems faced by the Bar due to the closure of courts. CJI Bobde assured him,"We know the problems of the Bar. We have been meeting them over the past nine months."Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then weighed in, taking exception to Singh's submission that citizens were being denied justice. He said,"We take strong objection to this. Common people are getting justice."Singh then shot back,"They cannot entertain expensive lawyers.".The Court proceeded to dispose of the matter as withdrawn..When the matter came up hearing yesterday, CJI Bobde expressed the view that the petitioners should approach the Delhi High Court, and that the top court ordinarily "does not interfere with the administrative decisions of High Court Chief Justices.".However, Sibal argued that the right to access to justice needs to be balanced with the right to life. He pointed out that lawyers would expose themselves to COVID-19 if they were made to come to court. .After agreeing with Sibal's submission, the Court adjourned the matter for a day..Petitions were recently filed challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to resume large-scale physical hearing before the High Court and subordinate courts in Delhi with effect from January 18, without giving a choice to lawyers to appear through virtual mode. .The first petition was filed by four lawyers through AoR Mohit Paul challenging the January 14 notification of the Delhi High Court which increased the number of benches at the High Court for physical hearings. Accordingly, eleven Benches were mandated for physical hearing from January 18.Besides, the notification also prescribed that lower courts in the city can function physically on every alternate day with effect from January 18..Eleven Benches of Delhi High Court to hold physical hearing from Jan 18; Lower courts to function physically on alternate days.It was the petitioners' case that by compelling practicing advocates, litigants, and non-legal personnel to physically appear in courts, the High Court has failed to consider the concerns surrounding health, life, and well-being of advocates, and the interest of society..Another plea by five women lawyers too challenge the Delhi High Court's decision to resume physical hearing while not giving lawyers the option to argue virtually amid the COVID-19 pandemic..Lawyers will have to choose between profession and children: Another plea filed in Supreme Court against Delhi High Court's physical hearing move.In this plea, it was asserted that the hearings through virtual and physical mode, as per the preference of the advocates and litigants, were going on smoothly before the High Court and its subordinate courts..The plea further states that there are women and men lawyers, including the present petitioners, having young children who are receiving online education at home. 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.