Filings Have Gone Down; Virtual Functioning Affecting Struggling Lawyers : Sr Adv Vikas Singh Tells Supreme Court

Arguing on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in its plea seeking quashing of the SOP issued by Supreme Court's Registry on hybrid hearings, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh on Tuesday highlighted various grievances faced by lawyers and the legal community amid covid 19 pandemic.

"The unsuccessful and struggling lawyers are the real sufferers today. As an individual I do not have difficulty but that is not the point. My convenience is not to be taken as a yardstick. The average number of bar cannot do this." Singh narrated the impact of virtual functioning before the Bench comprising of Justice SK Kaul and Justice Subhash Reddy.

Following Singh's arguments, the Supreme Court called for a meeting between the judges committee and newly elected Supreme Court Bar Association to "iron out" their differences in so far as their perception of the SOP is concerned.

While arguing that even the Judges of the Apex Court were unaware of the stand of the Bar with regards the SOP, Singh- who is also the SCBA President- argued that the SOP was issued without hearing the Bar Association on the subject.

Difficulty Of "Unsuccessful" and Struggling Lawyers To Survive Amid Pandemic

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who is seeking complete resumption of physical hearings, began highlighting the troubles faced by unsuccessful and struggling lawyers to survive in the pandemic hit legal community. According to Singh, such lawyers were the "real sufferers" of the day.

Arguing that many established and successful lawyers including him enjoyed the privilege of earning well in the middle of the covid-19 pandemic, Singh submitted that "As an individual I do not have difficulty but that is not the point. My convenience is not to be taken as a yardstick. The average number of bar cannot do this."

In view of this, Singh went ahead to submit that due to the difficulties faced by such lawyers at the Bar, lawyers even faced difficulty of running their homes and paying fees for their children, so much so that some have even switched their profession.

"Filing of the matters have gone down below by 20 to 25%. Some lawyers are facing difficulty to run their homes, to pay fees for their children fees. Some have even left their profession." Singh submitted.

At this juncture, Justice Subhash Reddy intervened and supported the grievance highlighted by Singh by saying that the Bench knows the problems faced by young lawyers, however, he specified that a balance has to be reached in such a situation.

Make Wearing Masks And Sanitizing Hands Compulsory In Courts

On the intervention made by Justice Reddy on the issue of increasing number of covid-19 cases in the country, Adv. Vikas Singh submitted that wearing of masks and sanitization of hands can be made compulsory for lawyers appearing in physical courts.

The suggestion came after Singh submitted that most of the positive cases in the National Capital were due to the carelessness of people on the streets not wearing masks.

"Now look how the situation has worsened on the streets. People are not wearing masks. People are not even sanitizing their hands. We should have open hearings with masks compulsory and we can do this on miscellaneous days. On regular day, you may have regular matters. If someone knows his matter will not come till 12, you will not have to come to the Court." Singh submitted.

Non Consultation With The Bar Association While Formulating SOP, SOP 'parachuted' at the Bar

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh went ahead to argue that the Bar Association was not at all consulted or heard while the concerned SOP was issued. According to Singh, if 99% problem with the SOP lies on the side of the Bar, then the Bar should be deciding the contents of the SOP.

"Ultimately if 99% problem is on this side, then we should be deciding this. It is not that we lawyers are not discussed with at all." Singh submitted.

"I am here today for quashing of the SOP. As a President of Bar, I have not been called for a meeting for the last 16 days. And if I cant be heard, if the Chief Justice or Judges Committee doesn't have the time to hear me, and if my views are irrelevant for the purpose of this SOP, then I do not want to say anything. In such a case, this is a close door for me. The SOP was never placed before us. It has been straight away parachuted at the Bar." Singh argued.

Opinion of Medical Experts "A Sham"

While Justice SK Kaul highlighted that the Minutes of Meeting revealed that the opinions of medical experts were considered as far as the covid 19 situation is concerned, Singh called these opinions a sham after citing the example of Bihar elections which were conducted in October last year.

"They are a sham. Whole Bihar elections were done in October at a time when the covid 19 pandemic was at its peak. Here 2000 voters were not allowed to do physical voting. In such case, your lordships may shut this institution for us." Singh argued.

Furthermore, Singh also argued that when the operations of Airports and Cinema Halls are allowed to function at full swing currently, then the Court should also consider opening itself for physical functioning.

"There are airports which are physically functioning, people are sitting beside each other for 2 or 3 hours. If that is not affecting the positivity rate, then why can't we have the same here?" Singh submitted.

At this juncture, Justice SK Kaul remarked "There are different issues being debated. If there are some areas in the SOP which are workable, then the committee should look into it. These are all administrative issues. We will note some of the aspects and say that appropriate post discuss this with Judges Committee and come back to us on suggestions. The only solution is to have a discussion with the committee."

Background of the Plea

Supreme Court of India had issued a SOP dated 5th March, directing resumption of hybrid court hearings from 15th March. Several directions were also issued regarding its functioning in consideration of the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic and suggestions given by the Bar Associations.

A pilot scheme was therefore devised for hearing cases in the hybrid manner on an experimental basis. According to the scheme, the final hearing and regular matters listed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays will be heard in the hybrid mode, after consideration of the number of parties in a matter and the limited capacity of the Court rooms. However all other matters, including those listed on Mondays and Fridays will continue to be heard through video -conferencing mode.

Later, the SCBA decided to not accept the said SOP as it was prepared without taking into confidence the Bar, despite the assurance given to them by CJI Bobde in the meeting held on March 1st 2021.

The plea therefore stated that in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the SCBA with the CJI held on March 1, it was assured that the needful would be done by the Registry expeditiously taking into consideration the suggestions given by the Executive Committee. However, it is claimed, that the impugned SOP has been issued "unilaterally" by the Registry.

The plea further submitted that there is general feeling in the Bar that for the last few years, the Supreme Court Registry has been issuing Circulars without taking the Bar into confidence, even though such circulars directly affect the Lawyers practicing.

It was also stated that a large number of urgent matters are going unheard because of the peculiar system of listing, i.e. sending an email to the Mentioning Registrar giving the reasons for urgency.

The Association has also said that most of the High Courts, including the Delhi High Court, have either started holding Physical Courts or are in the process of starting Physical Courts, and it is high time that like every other institution, the Supreme Court also restores normalcy and begins physical hearings with adequate precautions like temperature check at entry points, wearing of masks and maintenance of social distancing.