‘Not a subject which can be discussed in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution’: Supreme Court disposes SCBA challenge to the Standard Operating Procedure

Division Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice R Subhash Reddy, while disposing off the challenge by SCBA on the Standard operating procedure issued dated 05.03.2021, noted that the matter fell under the administrative domain and there was little to do on the judicial side. 

“It is not a subject which can be discussed in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It relates to the administrative working of the Supreme Court. We had endeavoured to facilitate an interaction so that the problems perceived to be faced by the Bar can be ironed out. That course appears not to be acceptable to the Bar”, the bench in its order said.

“We specifically put Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, whether it would be acceptable for him to make suggestions/modifications in the existing SOP so that the same could be discussed with the Registry and thereafter placed before the Committee as recorded in the Minutes dated 19.03.2021. Of course, whether the Committee wants to hear the representatives of the Bar is a matter for the Committee to consider”, added the bench.

Senior Counsel Mahalakshmi Pavani appeared for the SCBA.

“If you lordships feel that the Supreme Court is above law, we will have to take the law in our own hands”, said the SCBA President, re-agitating the grounds submitted earlier against the impugned SOP.

It was the submission of petitioners that in the earlier meetings with the Registry, they have not really considered the perspective of the Advocates and the problems being faced by the young lawyers and therefore, it is their view that the SOP must go as a whole and a fresh SOP must be drawn.

In the previous hearing on March 17, 2021, the bench had directed for holding a meeting between the SCBA President and the Judges Committee. Today’s hearing was pursuant to the findings of the Committee report dated 19.03.2021.

Senior Counsel and SCBA President reiterated the necessity of Physical hearing, focussing more on the problems faced by younger members at the Bar.

The plea moved by SCBA said, “even if before resumption of full physical hearing before this Hon'ble Court, a hybrid hearing was to be introduced as an interim measure, in that case the hybrid hearing should have been for all days i.e. from Monday to Friday. In the SOP dated 05.03.2021, there is no provision for hybrid hearing for the matters listed on Monday and Friday, i.e. Miscellaneous days where primarily fresh matters are listed.”

Primary reason against the challenge is non-consultation with the major stakeholders; The Bar Association per se. 

Case Title: SCBA v. Supreme Court of India | WP (C) 310 of 2021