"We have other important matters," Supreme Court refuses urgent listing of plea declaring virtual hearings a fundamental right

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain an urgent mentioning by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra pertaining to a plea seeking a declaration that the right to participate in court proceedings via video conference is a fundamental right.

A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai said that they have other important matters like bail and people are in jail.

However, Luthra submitted that there is a rise in the number of Covid-19 cases and thus makes the matter to be listed urgently.

The plea was filed specifically challenging the Aug 16 notification issued by the Uttarakhand High Court to revert to full physical functioning from Aug 24 to the exclusion of virtual mode of hearing cases completely.

The plea also sought a direction restraining all High Courts from denying access to lawyers through the virtual mode of hearing on the ground of availability of the option of physical hearing.

Earlier, The Supreme 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 writ petition seeking a declaration that the right to participate in court proceedings via video conference is a fundamental right.

Luthra, appearing for the petitioners had informed the court that the petitioner organization represents more than 5000 lawyers, to this the Court observed how BCI Chairman had already stated that virtual hearings were the reason why younger lawyers were suffering as their livelihood had been affected because of it.

Stating that during the physical hearing, there is eye-to-eye contact which makes the lawyer's arguments more effective, the court asked the petitioners’ counsel in the absence of such facility, how the young lawyers will learn.

On the contention raised by Luthra that some High Courts were saying that they would follow the hybrid mode of hearing but were effectively insisting on the physical appearance of lawyers, the bench made it clear that it would not be staying any notification without hearing the other side.

However, Luthra had further contended that the hybrid option should not be done away with as it lets the litigants save a cost on the lawyers to travel & also reduces carbon footprints. It'll also be a relief for the litigants, he said.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association made it clear that they are against the petition and want only full physical hearing. He said that he will file an affidavit in that regard.

The plea filed through Advocate Sriram Parakkat and drawn by Advocates Siddharth R Gupta and Prerna Robin stated that Uttarakhand High Court’s concerned notification is a death knell for justice, because as observed by the E-Committee of Supreme Court, the very idea of virtual courts is an accessible, affordable justice in the country.

Case Title: All India Association of Jurists and another v. High Court of Uttarakhand and others