Supreme Court Seeks Report From Union On Virtual Hearing Facilities At Tribunals

In a case involving the issue of virtual access to Court/Tribunal proceedings, the Supreme Court recently called for a report from the Union Government as to the effective availability of video conferencing facility for lawyers and litigants in Tribunals functioning within its jurisdiction.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order while dealing with a batch of petitions raising the issue of virtual access not being provided across all High Courts and Tribunals in the country. The hearing witnessed the Amici Curiae inform that High Courts across the country are providing VC facilities, however, insofar as Tribunals are concerned, there is a need to provide convenient VC facilities to lawyers and litigants.

One of these petitions was filed against the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, alleging that the High Court discontinued the option of virtual hearing which was made available during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Considering a submission from the petitioner-in-person and Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta (for the High Court) that the facility has now been made available, the Court dismissed this petition as withdrawn.

It is worthwhile to mention that on October 6, 2023, the Court passed a significant order containing detailed directions. These included -

"(i) After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing of such a facility;

xxx

(ix) The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15 November 2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure for hybrid hearings. All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement of hybrid hearings no later than 15 November 2023. The directions governing the High Courts shall also apply to the Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries of the Union Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT, NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs."

Perusing the records, including the above order, the bench of Justices Roy and Bhatti noted that steps for providing video conferencing/ hybrid participation were also ordered by the Court for APTEL and other such forums.

During the hearing, one of the counsels also mentioned an interim application under the Electricity Act, saying that the consumers have a major role, yet the CERC and SERCs are not providing VC facility. It was prayed that the Union be asked to comply with earlier order(s), which had been complied only to the extent of CAT, NCLAT, NCDRC, etc. Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (acting as Amicus) supported the counsel's submissions regarding non-compliance at CERC/SERC level, saying, "they have implemented insofar as only APTEL is concerned. The regulatory commissions where the first set of hearings happen, there is no compliance across the country."

Interestingly, Senior Advocate V Giri, representing a woman advocate, highlighted to the court that the provision of VC facilities has been a boon for women during and around the time of pregnancy. Justice Roy concurred and voiced similar sentiment, saying that VC facility has empowered women lawyers and the same needs to be appreciated.

For a report on earlier proceedings in the case, click here.

Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court, W.P.(Crl) No.351/2023 (and connected cases)