Virtual Hearing Facilities Can't Be Restricted To Advocates/Litigants Above A Particular Age : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while mandating hybrid hearings in all High Courts across the country, expressed its concern over the absence of uniform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in High Courts, highlighting the need for a clear and consistent approach to electronic access for hearings. The bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also criticised the existence of age-based restrictions in the current SOPs which permit hybrid mode hearings only for advocates and parties-in-person aged 65 or above.Inconsistent Access to Electronic HearingsIn its order, the Supreme Court noted that many High Courts lacked standardized SOPs for accessing electronic modes of hearing, leading to confusion and inconsistencies. It was observed that in certain cases, litigants and lawyers were required to submit applications for electronic access well in advance, sometimes up to three days before the scheduled hearing. This practice, as per the court's opinion, created unnecessary barriers and hindered swift access to justice. The court stated–"In most High Courts, the problem is compounded by the absence of a uniform SOP which brings clarity to the manner in which access to the electronic mode of hearing can be obtained. An application for electronic access has to be submitted well in advance, in certain cases, three days before the date of commencement of the hearing."Age-Based Restrictions CriticizedIn its order, the Supreme Court also criticised the existence of age-based restrictions in the current SOPs. As per the SOPs of certain High Courts, hybrid mode hearings are only permitted for advocates and parties-in-person aged 65 or above. The Supreme Court has asserted that this arbitrary age limit has the potential to unfairly disadvantage younger lawyers and limit access to technology primarily to senior members of the legal profession.The Supreme Court asserted that these age-based criteria had no clear connection to the primary goal of utilizing technology in courtrooms: increasing accessibility. The court stated–"The arbitrariness of the existing SOPs is also borne out by rules such as hearing being allowed in hybrid mode for advocates/parties-in-person who are 65 years of age or above. The age restriction would unfairly disadvantage younger lawyers and restrict access to technology only in the hands of the seniors at the Bar. Such criteria do not bear any nexus to the aim of using technology to increase access to courtrooms."Embracing Hybrid HearingsThe Court has directed the High Courts to ensure that adequate internet facilities including Wi-fi are made available free of charge to all advocates and litigants appearing before the High Courts. The Apex Court also said that links available through Video Conferencing must be made available in the cause list of the concerned court and that there should be no requirement to make a separate application to appear through virtual mode. The Court also directed all High Courts to put in place a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for litigants to avail access to hybrid/video conferencing hearings within four weeks.Case Title : Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court| W.P.(Crl.) No. 351/2023Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 871Click Here To Read Order

Virtual Hearing Facilities Can't Be Restricted To Advocates/Litigants Above A Particular Age : Supreme Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Virtual Hearing Facilities Can't Be Restricted To Advocates/Litigants Above A Particular Age : Supreme Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers