In an unprecedented initiative taken on Monday, the Rajasthan High Court held a hearing through video conferencing. The Bench comprised by Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur was seated in the principal bench at Jodhpur while the parties and their representatives were present in a court room at the Jaipur Bench of the high court.The Petitioner, a resident of...
In an unprecedented initiative taken on Monday, the Rajasthan High Court held a hearing through video conferencing. The Bench comprised by Chief Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vineet Kumar Mathur was seated in the principal bench at Jodhpur while the parties and their representatives were present in a court room at the Jaipur Bench of the high court.
The Petitioner, a resident of Rajasthan, had filed a PIL challenging the 5% special reservation granted to the Gujjar community under the Most Backward Castes (MBC) quota. His main point of contention has been that reservation beyond 50% limit, as granted to the community herein, is unconstitutional. He also contended that this community was set to be granted reservation within the OBC category and had wrongly been included in the MBC category by the Rajasthan Backward Classes Amendment Rules, 2019.
The proceedings of this case were initially being held at Jaipur Bench only but were later shifted to the principal bench at Jodhpur where three hearings had already been conducted. However, this unprecedented move was made by the division bench due to inability of the parties to appear in Jodhpur on Monday.
The administrative officials of the court informed that all the essential equipments had been installed and a test hearing had been carried out on Saturday to ensure that no technical problems arose during the actual hearing.
This move has set a paradigm signifying that even a distance of 350 kms cannot become a hurdle in the way of justice delivery mechanism. Further, court hearings in this matter are now speculated to be conducted regularly via video conferencing until arguments from both the sides are concluded.
The court has asked the government to inform them the number of sanctioned posts which existed as on December 31, 2012 in various departments under the state government, today.
The Petitioner in the matter is represented by Advocate Abhinav Sharma and the state is represented by Advocate General Mahendra Singhvi.