Supreme Court Asks HC Committees To Examine Grievances Regarding VC Access To Lawyers & Litigants

The Supreme Court today(April 17) disposed of a batch of petitions, originally filed during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking access to courtroom proceedings through virtual court links. The Court disposed of the petitions, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the various E-Committees constituted to deal with the issue.

Today, the petitioner particularly pressed the issue that advocates and litigants, whose matter are not listed on a particular day, are unable to join the VC links provided in the causelist. He argued that the right to access virtual court hearings is a fundamental right.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta disposed of the petition, giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts and the e-Committee of the various High Courts for this issue.

At the outset, the Advocate for the petitioner briefly stated out the background of this case. He next added: "I will give an example of this Court. There are static links of all the 16-17 Courts whichever are in session. When we click on the link, anybody who clicks on the link can watch the proceedings and if he is a lawyer not appearing, his video and mic are muted. At least, he has a right to access the courtroom proceedings just like an open court. Now, the difficulty with many high courts today is, links are provided but if he's a lawyer who is not a party to a particular case, the link is not open for him. Meaning thereby, the link is there in the causelist but if I click, I am not allowed to join the proceedings virtually..same is with the litigant. This is a problem happening in many high courts across the country."

The Advocate requested a response from all High Courts on this issue. Another issue the Advocate pointed out is that if the links are available to all, then the mic of the judge is muted. Therefore, the comments of the judge are not audible. He specifically stated that this issue is faced in the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts. The advocate stated that the High Courts are in contempt for not complying with the directions already passed by the Court in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court in which live streaming of proceedings was allowed.

On the side of the Respondents, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee clarified that the petition was filed in the backdrop of the pandemic, and much time has passed since then. 

After due consideration, Justice Nath remarked that this cannot be done on the judicial side, and it has to be done on the administrative side. "Why don't you make a statement that this matter has to be dealt at the administrative side and not the judicial side and we will close the matter," Justice Nath suggested to the counsel of a High Court.

Justice Mehta asked the petitioner if it was viable for the Supreme Court to initiate contempt proceedings against High Court Registrars. "Are we going to take contempt petitions against the Registrar of the High Courts?"

The Court therefore passed an order stating that the petition can be dealt with at the administrative side: "The petition can be dealt with at the administrative side by the various Committees constituted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, for example, the E-Committees, NCMP, SCMS committees. The petitioner would be at liberty to assist the Committee along with supporting materials."

Advocates Siddarth R Gupta and Sriram Parakkat appeared for the petitioners.

Case Details: ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF JURISTS Vs HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND|W.P.(C) No. 941/2021 

Click Here To Read/Download Order