Can't Give A Direction To HC Chief Justice That All Courts Should Work Only In Virtual Platform : Supreme Court
story
The Supreme Court on Friday orally said that it cannot give a mandamus direction to a High Court Chief Justice that all courts should operate in the virtual platform only. A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant suggested that the better course would be to place such suggestions before the High Court on its administrative side.The Court was hearing a writ petition...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court on Friday orally said that it cannot give a mandamus direction to a High Court Chief Justice that all courts should operate in the virtual platform only. A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant suggested that the better course would be to place such suggestions before the High Court on its administrative side.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by lawyer Ghansham Upadhyay challenging the Bombay High Court's January circular reducing its working hours in Mumbai to 3 hours on account of the COVID third wave. The petitioner had also sought an additional direction that the Courts in Maharashtra should function in a virtual platform as well.
As regards the issue relating to working hours, the Supreme Court noted that in view of the High Court reverting to full time working from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM on a virtual mode, the grievance has been substantially met and that for any other suggestions, the petitioner and the intervenor would be at liberty to bring them to the attention of the registrar general of the High Court so that they can be considered at the appropriate level.
Addressing Advocate Subhash Jha, who appeared on an intervention application, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said, "The High Courts are not subordinate to us. Every High Court has very peculiar conditions within their own jurisdiction. I have practised in that High Court, I have been a judge there. The staff in Mumbai comes from very very long distances. Some of the members of the bar- they became judges later- came from Pune, and they go back to their office at 9 in the night! Likewise, the staff. My own private secretaries used to leave home at 6 o'clock in the morning to reach the High Court at 9:30, finish work at 5:30 and reach home in 9:30, collecting their children on the way! There are difficult and very different conditions in Mumbai. So this is part of the reasons..."
Mr. Jha submitted that having the courts function through VC could be a better solution- "My submission is that with these electronic gadgets, video conferencing- I have done some research, this is a practice which is followed in the smallest of the small countries in Europe..."
Justice Chandrachud said, "You are right! Look at us! We are truly a national court now. You are addressing us from Mumbai! Any member of the bar or litigant in person can address as in anywhere in the country now!"
Mr. Jha continued, "Look at the Gujarat High Court, the Karnataka High Court- They have a facility of live streaming!"
Justice Chandrachud remarked, "I am pursuing the High Courts, I am heading the E committee of the Supreme Court on that. So let us leave that for the moment..."
Justice Surya Kant said, "These are administrative issues. Every High Court deals with them in its own way, depending on the facts and circumstances. If you have a problem, meet the Chief Justice, the senior judges, tell them what is required."
Justice Chandrachud said, "The suggestion of my learned brother is too good. We will request you and we will request Mr. Ganshyam Upadhyay (petitioner-in-person) to seek an appointment with the chief justice, to explain the perspective. You are both senior members of the bar. We will permit you to seek an audience with the Chief Justice of the High Court and explain your perspective. Submit a small letter, and seek an audience. You have a valid point."
"Today, the High Court is sitting from 12 to 3?", asked the judge.
The bench was told that now the Court has reverted back to 10:30 AM to 4: 30 PM working hours
"So now it is full time. What remains in the petition?", asked Justice Chandrachud.
Mr. Upadhyay also raised the issue of courts functioning on a virtual platform, "In the first wave also, when there was an SOP that courts should function virtually, even then it did not happen in the district courts, the Mumbai city civil courts."
Justice Chandrachud observed, "this is again a matter for the Chief Justice. You say all courts, all district courts should work on a virtual platform? We know we had to resort to the virtual platform in the course of the pandemic as a result of the serious problems we had to face. We cannot issue a mandamus to the Chief Justice of the High Court that you will only work on the virtual platform."
Justice Surya Kant also noted, "We don't know what are the facilities available, what is the stand of the local bar. State government's assistance is needed. These issues have to be dealt with on the administrative side."
Justice Chandrachud added, "now you are yourself saying that the High Court has started functioning in virtual mode full time. Therefore your grievance has been substantially met. If you have any suggestions, you bring them to the notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate remedial action as may be considered necessary. Also Mr. Jha may also place a suggestion for the consideration of the chief justice."
Mr. Jha pressed, "Mr Upadhyay's petition is restricted in scope and ambit to the state of Maharashtra, my request is why not make it pan India."
Justice Chandrachud observed, "you are absolutely right. That is part of the work we are doing on the e-committee. This is not on the judicial side but we can apprise you of what work is going on. We are very shortly coming out with the vision document of phase 3 of the E-courts project. It was uploaded for suggestions for members of the public and bar. It is already available in the public realm. We said 'let's have suggestions from all stakeholders'. This is a part of the process that we are going through with phase 3- now it is at the budgeting stage, once the document is accepted, we will be moving the government of India for budgeting- For Live Streaming, we need to create the infrastructure as well. You need Live streaming infrastructure across the country. We can't just say that 'let us start live streaming'. We have to have necessary infrastructure for the cloud where we host the live streaming eventually. We want to host it ourselves, rather than giving it to 3rd parties. There are a lot of issues which are being taken up by the E committee. You are welcome to send your suggestions in the committee and we will be happy to look at it."
"Mr Jha, you can also speak to Mr Yashwant Goswami who was working on deputation with us and has gone back to the Bombay High Court now. He has done a lot of work for us on the software", added the judge.
Justice Chandrachud continued to observe, "What is desirable is one thing, the ability to implement it depends on various infrastructural issues. The High Courts have started doing it, Karnataka has started, Gujarat has started. I think Orissa and Madhya Pradesh have started. High Courts are gradually picking up. But it cannot be at the flick of a button that we can say that we are starting live streaming. There are various infrastructural issues also."
The bench then proceeded to dictate the following order- "Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, counsel who appears in person, states that the Bombay High Court has reverted to full time working from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM on a virtual mode. In view of the above statement, the grievance of the petitioner has been substantially met. However, if there are any other suggestions which the petitioner has, he would be at liberty to bring them to the attention of the registrar general of the High Court so that they can be considered at the appropriate level. Likewise, Mr Subhash Jha, counsel on an application for intervention, may submit any other suggestions which he may have to the registrar general. Subject to the aforesaid, the petition is disposed off."
Case Title: Ghanshyam Upadhyay v. The High Court Of Bombay And Anr.
Click Here To Read/Download Order