Form of words:
New Delhi: On September 1, the Supreme Court opened its doors to lawyers after a period of 17 months. The court started hearing cases through video-conferencing in March last year after the country was under lockdown due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, it takes only a few people for the physical hearing as in the first three days most of the lawyers opted to appear for the hearing through video conference.
For example, on the first day, the court of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana was started by more than 90 lawyers. In some courts no one physically appeared throughout the day.
The second day in the CJI’s court began with over 50 participants, all of whom appeared virtually. On the third day, which Friday was specifically designated for the virtual hearing, more than 150 participants logged in.
Supreme Court lawyer Shivam Singh said the physical hearing has received a “beautiful response” from the Supreme Court lawyers.
“Since all courts offer hybrid hearing opportunities, lawyers have found it more prudent to conduct hearings from their screens,” he told ThePrint.
Singh also blamed it on logistical issues and the apprehension of a third wave, saying, “There is also concern that once in a physical court, lawyers may not effectively attend virtual hearings before other courts. To avoid these logistical hurdles and the fear of an imminent third wave, people have found it more prudent to forgo physical appearances. “
‘Hybrid option’, special hearing pass
The Secretary General of the Supreme Court had issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to start physical hearings with a ‘hybrid option’ from September 1. The SOP dated August 28 states that there will be an option to hear on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in regular appeals or in old cases. On Monday and Friday, hearing of fresh/miscellaneous matters will continue through video conferencing.
The SOP also said that the entry of lawyers and parties to the high security area of the court for physical hearing would be done only through a daily ‘Special Hearing Pass’, which would be issued by the Registry on the basis of authorization by the advocate concerned. On-record on the portal.
Additionally, it limited the number of lawyers in courts to 20 at a time, and said that in cases where more than 20 persons are physically present, it is up to the concerned Supreme Court bench to adjourn the matter and conduct videoconferencing. It shall have the discretion to hear the matter through the mode.
Read also: SC panel again recommends appointment of son of judge found Godhra train fire ‘accidental’
SOP a ‘non-starter’
However, a day after the issue of this SOP, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) wrote a letter to the CJI, stating that “the SOP is a nonstarter as our members do not want to take the option of a physical hearing, in which many Terms are attached. “
It had objected to several clauses of the SOP, including the limit of 20 lawyers in courtrooms, calling it “arbitrary” as the size of courtrooms varies greatly.
The letter also claimed that barring entry of lawyers into high-security areas, which have bar rooms, libraries, canteens etc. without special passes, would “disappoint” lawyers from applying for physical hearings.
SCBA had then called for resumption of normal functioning of the court “at the earliest”, talking about the decline in the positivity rate, the possibility of India entering the endemic phase of COVID-19 and the fact That Delhi has relaxed restrictions. Public places such as malls, cinema halls, weddings, parties and restaurants have opened. The letter even said that the fear of a third wave “no longer justifies restricting the functioning of the Supreme Court”.
‘Don’t treat SC as Wuhan lab’
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), in the SOP blamed such restrictions for some of the takers for physical hearings and called for the resumption of normal functioning of the apex court.
Criticizing restrictions like the need for special passes, he told ThePrint, “This (Supreme Court) has been our place of residence, our place of work. We really belong to that place, but suddenly we are made strangers. This is completely unacceptable to us.”
“This form of restrictive physical hearing with so many conditions is not acceptable to the bar. If everything is opened, don’t think of the Supreme Court as a Wuhan lab, that as soon as it opens, it will spread the infection to the whole country. It will be like any other The place is like that,” he said.
Singh pointed out that most of the lawyers and staff members of the Supreme Court have now been fully vaccinated and added, “I want the Supreme Court to be fully opened. If the virus mutates at a later stage and if the cases start increasing, then we can take a decision on it.”
Read also: 9 new judges of Supreme Court – 3 women, 1 OBC, 1 SC and 9 from different states
subscribe our channel youtube And Wire
Why is the news media in crisis and how can you fix it?
India needs free, unbiased, non-hyphenated and questionable journalism even more as it is facing many crises.
But the news media itself is in trouble. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism are shrinking, yielding to raw prime-time spectacle.
ThePrint has the best young journalists, columnists and editors to work for it. Smart and thinking people like you will have to pay a price to maintain this quality of journalism. Whether you live in India or abroad, you can Here.