Lawyers Must Be Allowed To Virtually Watch Entire Court Proceedings, Access Shouldn't Be Limited To Just Their Cases : CJI DY Chandrachud

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Friday (January 19) remarked that High Courts must allow lawyers to access virtual hearings throughout the court proceedings, without restricting such access only to the particular item of the lawyer.

CJI made this remark while hearing a batch of petitions which seek directions to ensure that all High Courts and Tribunals allow virtual access. The petitons were filed in the wake of some High Courts discontinuing hybrid hearing facilities after the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the petitions seek to declare virtual hearing as a fundamental right.

In November last year, a bench led by CJI had directed that all High Courts must provide virtual hearing facilities. The bench had also appointed Senior Advocates Mr Gaurav Aggarwal and Mr Parmeshwar, as amici curiae to understand the various issues involved in providing efficient video conferencing of High Courts.

During the hearing today, the amici curiae informed the bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that they have prepared a report regarding the VC facilities in various High Courts.

One lawyer raised a grievance that some High Court benches allow virtual access to lawyers only for their particular cases. “ In few benches, they are making the court open for all, like this Court is doing. We had the advantage of watching other proceedings apart from our matters also. Here in the High Court, few benches are not permitting, you have to just be in the lobby… it's limited access.”

Acknowledging that such limited access will cause difficulties, CJI r observed, “ Perhaps we can add that as one of our directions. There must be open access. Lawyers must be able to watch the proceedings through the court ….you are waiting for your matters, 25 (item) is called out and 26 is your matter, suddenly you get the link after 25”.

Advocate Siddharth mentioned the petition seeking to declare virtual hearing as a fundamental right on lines of the decision in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan where access to justice was considered a fundamental right. CJI said that a mere declaration of fundamental right will not serve any purpose of the necessary facilities are not in place. 

"Just declaring fundamental rights will not change things unless you change infrastructure on the ground..there are e-committees, which we are engaging in phase 3 of the project, which is that we must have adequate infrastructure in all High Courts, especially the hilly states, in north-eastern states. So, its a question of real upgradation”

The steps taken by the Amicus included sending a questionnaire to various High Courts on five different heads concentrating on the infrastructural facilities present therein; a questionnaire on the Wi-fi facilities in the High Courts for easy access to the lawyers and a virtual meeting with the authorities of all the High Courts to underline the missing parts in the infrastructure and software to enable a smooth hybrid hearing system.

The Amicus also submitted a detailed note on the deficiencies faced by each of the High Courts as of November 6, 2023. Mr Aggarwal also stated, “The good part is all the High Courts have also realised that they actually need to update their infrastructure for hybrid hearing”. The Senior Advocate also mentioned the complexities involved in ensuring synchronization of the audio and video during the court hearings.

Another issue informed to the bench was regarding the absence of any provision to mention the matters virtually. Addressing the concerns, the CJI asked the counsels to share their suggestions through email to the Amicus and they could also brainstorm about it.

It was also submitted that the Amicus has circulated model rules regarding the hybrid hearing mechanism, however, some of the High Courts have already adopted under powers of Article 225 and 227 certain video conferencing rules, in light of which it was urged that there be some uniformity in the hybrid hearing rules across the High Courts.

The Amicus in light of the above deliberations, sought further time to update the report prepared on the status of video conferencing in various High Courts and incorporate the suggestions from other stakeholders. The matter will not be heard on February 15.

Background

In the previous directions given by the bench, the Supreme Court has instructed the High Courts to provide internet services, including Wi-Fi, to advocates and litigants participating in High Court proceedings. Additionally, the Apex Court emphasized that links for Video Conferencing should be included in the relevant court's cause list, eliminating the need for a separate application for virtual appearances. Furthermore, the Supreme Court mandated all High Courts to establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within a four-week timeframe to facilitate litigants' access to hybrid/video conferencing hearings.

The bench additionally raised apprehensions regarding insufficient internet connectivity in the North Eastern states, impeding High Courts in these regions from offering video conferencing services. In response, the Court instructed the Ministry of Information Technology to guarantee the provision of internet connectivity to all courts in the North East, ensuring accessibility to online hearings.

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