On April 17, the Supreme Court disposed of a series of petitions filed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which sought uninterrupted virtual access to courtroom proceedings. These petitions were primarily concerned with ensuring that lawyers and litigants could access virtual court hearings through provided video conferencing (VC) links.
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, gave liberty to the petitioners to take up their grievances with the respective High Courts and their E-Committees, which are responsible for addressing such administrative matters.
"The petition can be dealt with at the administrative side by the various Committees constituted by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, for example, the E-Committees, NCMP, SCMS committees. The petitioner would be at liberty to assist the Committee along with supporting materials," the Court stated in its order.
During the hearing, the petitioner highlighted a significant issue — lawyers and litigants whose cases are not listed on a particular day are unable to join VC hearings using the links provided in the cause list. The advocate argued that access to virtual court proceedings is akin to the right to access an open courtroom, and therefore should be treated as a fundamental right.
The petitioner further elaborated by referring to the Supreme Court’s own system:
"There are static links for all 16-17 courts in session. Anyone can click and watch the proceedings. Lawyers who are not appearing will have their mic and video muted, but they can still observe. This ensures transparency, just like in an open court."
However, he noted that many High Courts across the country do not provide such open access. Even if a link is listed, a lawyer or litigant not directly involved in the matter cannot join the hearing.
Read Also:- UK Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Not Included in Definition of 'Woman' Under Equality Act 2010
Another concern raised was that in some courts, even if access is granted, the judge’s microphone is muted, making their comments inaudible. This, the petitioner noted, has been a particular problem in the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The petitioner also contended that some High Courts were not complying with the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which had allowed live streaming of court proceedings. As such, the petitioner suggested that High Courts might be in contempt of the ruling.
"If the links are available to all, but the judge’s mic is muted, then no meaningful hearing is possible. This issue is especially being faced in the Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts," the petitioner submitted.
Advocates Siddarth R. Gupta and Sriram Parakkat appeared for the petitioners. They sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure compliance and transparency across all courts.
On behalf of the respondents, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee pointed out that the petition had been filed in the context of the pandemic, and much time had passed since then. He suggested the issue now fell under the administrative domain.
Read Also:- Citizens for Justice and Peace Tells Supreme Court: Anti-Conversion Laws Are Being Weaponised by States
Justice Nath agreed, remarking:
"This cannot be done on the judicial side; it has to be done on the administrative side. Why don’t you make a statement that this matter has to be dealt with at the administrative side, and we will close the matter?"
Justice Mehta also questioned the practicality of invoking contempt proceedings:
"Are we going to take contempt petitions against the Registrars of the High Courts?"
The Court concluded that the matter should be handled by the concerned High Court E-Committees and similar administrative bodies. It granted the petitioners the liberty to approach these committees with all supporting materials and suggestions.
Case Title: All India Association of Jurists vs High Court of Uttarakhand
W.P.(C) No.: 941/2021
