The Supreme Court on Friday declined to allow urgent listing of the plea to declare virtual court hearing as a fundamental right..The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra before a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao. Luthra cited the rise in COVID cases and sought priority hearing in the matter. "The numbers are rising now and this plea needs to be listed. We need hybrid hearing," Luthra said on behalf of one of the petitioners"Hybrid means we will not have pleasure to see Mr Luthra in court. There is no urgency. All people are coming to court. If situation worsens we will see," the bench said. Advocate Siddharth R Gupta appearing for another petitioner also made the same request."Please take this up milord. Some High Courts are allowing it, some are not. There needs to be a national, uniform policy on hybrid hearings. Please list it" Gupta said. "There are more urgent matters like people in jail, bail cases etc. We will list in July," the bench responded. .There are at least two petitions seeking virtual hearing as a matter of right. The plea filed by All India Jurists Association, a body of more than 5,000 lawyers across the country, and journalist Sparsh Upadhyay of Livelaw has 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.The plea filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat stated that virtual courts and conducting cases through video conference by resorting to use of information, communication and technology is a fundamental right available to every lawyer under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India.Such access cannot be defeated or dispensed with on procedural grounds of lack of technology or infrastructure or inconvenience of the courts in handling them, the petitioner submitted.Another plea filed by National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice 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.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to allow urgent listing of the plea to declare virtual court hearing as a fundamental right..The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra before a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao. Luthra cited the rise in COVID cases and sought priority hearing in the matter. "The numbers are rising now and this plea needs to be listed. We need hybrid hearing," Luthra said on behalf of one of the petitioners"Hybrid means we will not have pleasure to see Mr Luthra in court. There is no urgency. All people are coming to court. If situation worsens we will see," the bench said. Advocate Siddharth R Gupta appearing for another petitioner also made the same request."Please take this up milord. Some High Courts are allowing it, some are not. There needs to be a national, uniform policy on hybrid hearings. Please list it" Gupta said. "There are more urgent matters like people in jail, bail cases etc. We will list in July," the bench responded. .There are at least two petitions seeking virtual hearing as a matter of right. The plea filed by All India Jurists Association, a body of more than 5,000 lawyers across the country, and journalist Sparsh Upadhyay of Livelaw has 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.The plea filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat stated that virtual courts and conducting cases through video conference by resorting to use of information, communication and technology is a fundamental right available to every lawyer under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India.Such access cannot be defeated or dispensed with on procedural grounds of lack of technology or infrastructure or inconvenience of the courts in handling them, the petitioner submitted.Another plea filed by National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice 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.
