SC refuses to stay Uttarakhand HC order on resumption of physical hearing

The Supreme Court Monday refused to stay an order of the Uttarakhand High Court for resumption of physical hearing of cases, which were suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying young lawyers are suffering due to virtual hearing.A bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao impleaded the Bar Council of India BCI, Supreme Court Bar Association SCBA and issued notices to them in the matter.The top court made it clear that use of virtual hearing should be limited and that the petitioner should not say that hybrid system should continue for ever.Well issue notice to BCI SCBA.

The Supreme Court Monday refused to stay an order of the Uttarakhand High Court for resumption of physical hearing of cases, which were suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying young lawyers are suffering due to virtual hearing.

A bench headed by Justice Nageswara Rao impleaded the Bar Council of India (BCI), Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), and issued notices to them in the matter.

The top court made it clear that the use of virtual hearing should be limited and that the petitioner should not say that the hybrid system should continue forever.

''We'll issue notice to BCI & SCBA. Let's see what their response is. We've seen the order but we're not going to stay it,'' the bench also comprising Justices B R Gavai and B V Nagarathna said.

It said it is not the intention of the e-committee or this court not to see lawyers here. ''We are really missing all of you. We want to see you face to face. Also, the performance of lawyers is getting affected. Sitting in your office and making submissions is different from you arguing in court. ''We are actually missing the eye to eye contact in court where you are making arguments in full flow. All this is not there. How will young lawyers learn? Most of the young lawyers learn sitting in court and watching seniors argue. All this is not available in virtual mode,'' the bench said.

''We all are waiting for the retreat of COVID-19 and God willing the third wave goes and is not severe and things return to normalcy. So, the petitioners still insist that the court should not function in physical form,'' it said. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner -- All India Jurists Association -- argued that the hybrid system should continue and should not be done away with. The litigants will save a cost on the lawyers to travel and also reduce the carbon imprints, Luthra said, adding that the hybrid system should continue.

Senior advocate and SCBA president Vikas Singh said that he wants the physical hearing to resume in full swing.

The matter is now listed for the next hearing after four weeks.

The top court was hearing a plea against an order of the Uttarakhand High Court which said physical hearing of cases, which were suspended in March due to the COVID-19 pandemic, will resume from August 24.

A notification was issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on August 16 which also contained detailed guidelines to be followed after the resumption of physical hearing of cases.

The plea filed by the lawyer's body sought quashing of the notification which also said that no request for a virtual hearing will be entertained.

“Access to virtual courts and conducting cases through video conferencing by resorting to the usage of information, communication, and technology is a fundamental right available to every lawyer under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution. ''Being a fundamental right it cannot be defeated or dispensed with on procedural grounds of lack of technology or infrastructure or inconvenience of the courts in handling them,'' the plea said.

The petition stated that the High Court order is against accessible and affordable justice being propagated by the e-committee of the apex court.

It has also sought directions that no lawyer in ordinary circumstances should be denied access to virtual courts or any category/class of proceedings before the High Courts.

The lawyer's body has also sought a direction to restrain all high courts from denying access to lawyers through the virtual mode of hearing on the ground of availability of physical hearing.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)