'Who Is Behind You? Don't Misuse VC': Supreme Court Tells Woman Litigant, Offers Her Legal Aid & Travel Expenses To Appear Physically

"What's the problem if I appear through virtual mode?" argued a woman party-in-person today before the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing with a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner, when it asked her as to why she could not appear and argue before the Court physically, despite being offered legal aid and travel expenses.

The petitioner submitted that she needs to take care of someone in her family, lives far and is engaged in some occupation. She also highlighted that she got rectified the audio issues that prevented any effective hearing on the previous dates.

Justice Datta however noted that the petitioner kept looking at someone every time the Court would ask her something. "Livelihood is more important or you want to argue your case? You can't spare even one day to argue the case you are pursuing?", posed the judge to the petitioner. She replied that livelihood is more important.

When Justice Datta further who the petitioner kept looking at, she replied that she was looking at co-petitioners. Subsequently, however, she stated that she was the only petitioner in the case. This led the bench to caution her against making contradictory statements.

"You want to take advantage of the virtual interface and keep somebody behind you, who is not visible to us. We'd like to hear you in person" said Justice Datta.

Interestingly, the bench suggested that the petitioner name a Supreme Court advocate of her choice who could be appointed to assist her free of cost. It further offered her travel expenses and opportunity of being heard for an entire day. But the petitioner remained adamant.

"What is the problem with my arguing? I want to understand that. I want to understand what's the problem in my VC appearance", she insisted.

"We are at a loss to understand what prevents you from coming here!", retorted Justice Datta.

"If you want your submissions to be heard, it has to be in-person. We are requesting you to come to Delhi. All the expenses will be borne by NALSA", added the judge.

The bench took note of 2 judgments (by 2-judge benches), which held that contempt petitions cannot be filed by someone who was not party in the Lalita Kumari case, and asked the petitioner to address the Court on the correctness of the 2 judgments.

"Maybe we can permit you to argue that those 2 judgments require reconsideration", said Justice Kant.

At last, the judge told the petitioner to "make up her mind" about contesting the correctness of the 2 judgments pointed out. "I have made up my mind", she replied, before the Court parted with the matter.

Seemingly, the petitioner alleged contempt of Lalita Kumari judgment by the respondents. She sought recall of an order dated 20.11.2023 and restoration of appeal, claiming that she was not heard by the Court.

Case Title: ANINDITA Versus SUDHANSHU SARANGI AND ORS., MA 1045/2024