Virtual Hearing Can't Be A Norm; Rights Of Public To Have Open Court Can Be Protected By Live-Streaming : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday orally remarked that virtual hearing cannot be a norm, as it was adopted to meet the extraordinary crisis created by the COVID pandemic. The Court also commented that it is one thing to say that the public has right to witness the court hearings through live stream and another thing to say that they should have the right to have "virtual hearings".A Bench of Justice L.Nageshwara Rao and B.R.Gavai was hearing a writ petition which sought for the retention of the hybrid options for physical and virtual hearings in courts saying that it enhanced the right to access justice. The writ petition seeking "virtual hearing" as a fundamental right was jointly filed by ex-IPS officer Julio Ribeiro, RTI activist Shailesh R. Gandhi and an organization named "National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice".Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup, for the petitioners argued for the retention of hybrid options for physical and virtual hearing in courts. At the onset Justice L.Nageswar Rao asked if Counsel had seen the SOP issued last night mandating physical hearings two days per week and whether it was the argument that the SOP be set aside. Senior Advocate Swarup submitted that the hybrid mode be kept as a part of access of justice to citizens. He submitted that the present petition was on behalf of average citizens unlike other petition which was filed on behalf of jurists and lawyers. To which Justice Rao quipped: "These distinguished citizens should be told about the fundamental principles of open courts and open justice. We want courts to be open to the public and justice to be open." "It is one thing to say that there should be telecast of the proceedings, Justice Rao continued, "it is another thing to say that even after we get rid of COVID hopefully that this institution should be closed down because virtual hearing is a fundamental right." Continuing, Justice Rao said: "For the past two months we have made physical hearings optional and we have not seen one advocate in court on most of the days. Because given an option people are very comfortable in their offices". 'Lawyers Coming In Trickles For Physical Hearing' : Supreme Court Urges SCBA President To Encourage Members To Come Physically Senior Advocate Swarup submitted that the petition was not form the lawyer's point of view but from citizens of the country. Justice Rao intervened to mention that virtual hearing would not provide access to clients also. "Do you envisage that the building in which we are sitting would be closed because that would be result of virtual hearing becoming a norm." In jest Justice Gavai wondered if hybrid option is sought so that judges sit in the courtroom and lawyers can argue from Mussoorie, London, Goa and Mukteshwar, etc. "Hybrid option measn judges sit here, and lawyers appear from Mussoorie, Goa, London, Mukteshwar etc..", Justice Gavai said. Justice Rao further expressed that for 70 years we have understood courts to be functioning from physically from particular places."In view of an unprecedented crisis courts had to continue virtually because people cannot be denied access to justice. This cannot become a norm where citizens are saying that virtually we have a right".The judge further said that the right of the public (to witness court hearings) will be protected once the directions in the Swapnil Tripathi judgment for live-telecast are implemented. "In any event their rights are protected if the judgement of this court is implemented and there is telecast of the proceedings. But to argue that virtual proceedings are needed to protect their rights doesn't appear reasonable. They want access to justice… it means sitting in hometown and watching the proceedings" Justice Rao continued. Senior Advocate argued that virtual proceedings enable a two-way traffic. Live telecast allows information to flow to citizens whereas virtual proceedings will permit petitioners to access justice and speak directly in the Court. To which Justice Rao asked: "In how many cases parties in person are addressing us? We have one to two persons in a month." Mr.Swarup further submitted that virtual proceedings allow citizens to access justice at a much lesser cost. Relying on Anita Khuswaha vs Pushap Sudan case of 2016, SA Swarup argued that access to justice is a part of Right to Life under Art.21. He further submitted that other judgements of the Court have indicated imposing an unwavering requirement of physical presence to the exclusion of the video conferencing will result in denial of justice. Justice Rao: "Who are those who cannot come?" Swarup: "Those in remote areas, poverty-stricken, etc." Justice Gavai: Have you collected any data that in past 1.5 years how many such persons have approached this court? Justice Rao: "There is no person in remote area...

Virtual Hearing Can't Be A Norm; Rights Of Public To Have Open Court Can Be Protected By Live-Streaming : Supreme Court

Sneha Rao

Tags