Sarvesh Mathur vs The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana

REPORTABLE 2023INSC891

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Criminal) No 351 of 2023

Sarvesh Mathur … Petitioner

Versus

The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana … Respondent

ORDER

1 On the last date of hearing, i.e. 15 September 2023, notice was issued to the

Registrars General of all the High Courts, the National Company Law Appellate

Tribunal,1 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 2 and the National

Green Tribunal.3 They were directed to file an affidavit detailing (i) how many video

conferencing hearings have taken place in the last three months; and (ii) whether

any courts are declining to permit video conferencing hearings. Further, the

Solicitor General was requested to assist the court with data on hybrid hearings in

the tribunals under various ministries of the Union Government on the next date of

hearing.

2 Pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2023, the following High Courts

have filed their affidavits:

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2023.10.10 16:02:18 IST Reason:

1 “NCLAT” 2 “NCDRC” 3 “NGT” 2

(i) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;

(ii) High Court of Judicature at Bombay;

(iii) High Court at Calcutta;

(iv) High Court of Chhattisgarh;

(v) Gauhati High Court;

(vi) High Court of Gujarat;

(vii) High Court of Himachal Pradesh;

(viii) High Court of Jharkhand;

(ix) High Court of Karnataka;

(x) High Court of Kerala;

(xi) High Court of Madhya Pradesh;

(xii) High Court of Judicature at Madras;

(xiii) High Court of Meghalaya;

(xiv) High Court of Orissa;

(xv) High Court of Judicature at Patna;

(xvi) High Court of Punjab and Haryana;

(xvii) High Court of Rajasthan;

(xviii) High Court of Sikkim;

(xix) High Court of Andhra Pradesh;

(xx) High Court for the State of Telangana;

(xxi) High Court of Uttarakhand; and

(xxii) High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 3

3 Mr Gautam Narayan, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi

states that the response would be filed within a week. Permission is granted to do

so.

4 The High Court of Manipur and the High Court of Tripura have not filed any

response until date. They are granted a further extension of time until 13 October

2023 to file their responses failing which the Registrars General of the High Courts

concerned and the Registrars (IT) shall personally remain present on the next date

of hearing.

5 Mr Himanshu Shekhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the NGT states that

hybrid hearings are being held by the NGT both at the Principal Bench at Delhi and

at the Regional Benches. Likewise, it has been stated by Mr K.M. Nataraj,

Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the National Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission that the tribunal is holding hybrid hearings.

6 As regards the NCLAT, it has been stated that infrastructural requirements

have to be upgraded and funds have been sought from the Union Government.

The Additional Solicitor General states that requisite funds shall be made available

to the NCLAT. We direct that a joint meeting be held between the Secretaries of the

Ministries of Finance and Corporate Affairs with the President of the NCLAT within a

period of one week and that all pending issues, including the availability of funds

are sorted out so as to enable the NCLAT to conduct hybrid hearings.

Simultaneously, a meeting shall also be held with the Chairperson of the National

Company Law Tribunal4 within a period of two weeks. The NCLAT and NCLT shall

ensure that hybrid hearings are made available at the option of the appearing

4 “NCLT” 4

lawyers, or the litigants, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from the

date of this order.

7 Mr K M Nataraj states that a tabulated statement indicating the position of

other Tribunals falling under various Ministries of the Union Government shall also

be placed on the record by the next date of hearing.

8 During the course of the hearing, we have heard the following counsel on

behalf of the High Courts:

(i) Mr K Parameshar for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;

(ii) Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra with Mr Sandeep Deshmukh for the High Court of Judicature at Bombay;

(iii) Mr Kunal Chatterji for the High Court at Calcutta;

(iv) Mr Apoorv Kurup for the High Court of Chhattisgarh;

(v) Mr P I Jose for the Gauhati High Court;

(vi) Mr Nikhil Goel for the High Court of Gujarat;

(vii) Mr Tapesh Kumar Singh for the High Court of Jharkhand;

(viii) Ms Anagha N Sharma for the High Court of Karnataka;

(ix) Mr T G Narayanan Nair for the High Court of Kerala;

(x) Mr Arjun Garg for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh;

(xi) Mr S. Gurukrishna Kumar, senior counsel for the High Court of Judicature at Madras;

(xii) Mr Sanjai Kumar Pathak, counsel for the High Court of Meghalaya;

(xiii) Mr Shibashish Misra for the High Court of Orissa;

(xiv) Mr Gaurav Agrawal for the High Court of Judicature at Patna; 5

(xv) Mr Nidhesh Gupta, senior counsel for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana;

(xvi) Dr Charu Mathur for the High Court of Rajasthan;

(xvii) Ms Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta for the High Court of Sikkim; and

(xviii) Ms Uttara Babbar for the High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

9 From the discussions which have taken place before the Court, it is evident

that there is a considerable variation between High Courts in the level of adoption

of technology. Some High Courts have made considerable progress and hearings

are being provided through the hybrid mode or video conferencing. Other High

Courts have stated that facilities are available. However, when the statistics in

regard to the actual number of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode

have been disclosed, it appears that the performances are abysmal. For instance, in

one High Court, as few as 3 hearings have been conducted in the virtual mode in

the last three months.

10 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. 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.

6

11 Further, most High Courts do not provide Wi-Fi or internet connectivity to the

members of the Bar and litigants within the precincts of the High Court. In the

absence of adequate connectivity, it is not possible for the members of the Bar and

litigants to access the internet within the precincts of the High Courts. Links for

video conferencing hearings are not provided in the cause-list. Many High Courts

have not yet adopted online filings which would complement the hearings through

video conferencing or in the hybrid mode. We are also concerned about the

absence of adequate internet activity in the North-East States.

12 During the course of the hearing, it has also emerged that whereas several

High Courts do have facilities for video conferencing, very few High Courts are

operating through the hybrid mode of hearing. The infrastructure which is required

for conducting hybrid hearings may be of a different order as compared to the

infrastructure for video conferencing.

13 Bearing in mind the above situation as it has emerged across the country in

the High Courts, we nominate Mr Gaurav Agrawal and Mr K Parameshwar, counsel,

as amici curiae. The amici curiae are requested to collate all the information which

has been provided in the affidavits which have been filed before this Court in a

tabulated chart so that further effective orders can be passed by this Court. The

amici curiae may also distribute the work in connection with the High Courts

between them and individually contact the Registrars General/Registrars (IT) of the

High Courts so that necessary information can be placed before this Court in that

regard. The amici curiae shall also place before this Court the steps which have

been taken by all the High Courts to facilitate e-filing.

14 In this backdrop, we issue the following directions: 7

(i) After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no High Court

shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hearing through

the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of

availing of such a facility;

(ii) All State Governments shall provide necessary funds to the High Courts

to put into place the facilities requisite for that purpose within the time

frame indicated above;

(iii) The High Courts shall ensure that adequate internet facilities, including

Wi-Fi facilities, with sufficient bandwidth are made available free of

charge to all advocates and litigants appearing before the High Courts

within the precincts of the High Court complex;

(iv) The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid hearings

shall be made available in the daily cause-list of each court and there

shall be no requirement of making prior applications. No High Court

shall impose an age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria for

availing of virtual/hybrid hearings;

(v) All the High Courts shall put into place an SOP within a period of four

weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video conference hearings. In

order to effectuate this, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, Hon’ble Judge of the

High Court of Delhi is requested to prepare a model SOP, in conjunction

with Mr Gaurav Agrawal and Mr K Parameshwar, based on the SOP

which has been prepared by the e-Committee. Once the SOP is

prepared, it shall be placed on the record of these proceedings and be

circulated in advance to all the High Courts so that a uniform SOP is 8

adopted across all the High Courts for facilitating video

conference/hybrid hearings;

(vi) All the High Courts shall, on or before the next date of listing, place on

the record the following details:

(a) The number of video conferencing licences which have been

obtained by the High Court and the nature of the hybrid

infrastructure;

(b) A court-wise tabulation of the number of video conference/hybrid

hearings which have taken place since 1 April 2023; and

(c) The steps which have been taken to ensure that Wi-Fi/internet

facilities are made available within every High Court to members

of the Bar and litigants appearing in person in compliance with

the above directions.

(vii) The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology is directed

to coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure that adequate

bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided to all the courts in the

North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and

Kashmir so as to facilitate access to online hearings;

(viii) All High Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are made

available to the members of the Bar and Bench so as to enable all

practising advocates and Judges of each High Court to be conversant

with the use of technology. Such training facilities shall be set up by all 9

the High Courts under intimation to this Court within a period of two

weeks from the date of this order; and

(ix) The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15 November 2023, all

tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure for hybrid hearings.

All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement of hybrid hearings no

later than 15 November 2023. The directions governing the High Courts

shall also apply to the Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries of

the Union Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT,

NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs.

15 Notice shall also be issued to the Registrar In-charge of the Appellate Tribunal

for Electricity5. Mr K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General shall immediately

contact the Chairperson of the APTEL and take necessary steps on behalf of the

Union of India to ensure that video conferencing/hybrid facilities are made available

at APTEL within a period of one month from the date of this order.

16 Above all, it must be noted that technology plays an essential role in securing

access to courtrooms and as a result, access to justice for citizens across the

country. Lawyers and litigants using electronic gadgets to access files and legal

materials cannot be asked to turn the clock back and only refer to paper books. In

the march of technology, the Courts cannot remain tech averse. Placing fetters on

hybrid hearings, like mandating an age criteria, requiring prior application, and

frequent denial of access to virtual participants has the direct effect of discouraging

lawyers and litigants to use technology. Not only does this affect the efficiency and

access to courts, but it also sends out the misguided message that access to courts

can be restricted at whim to those who seek justice.

5 “APTEL” 10

17 The use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an option but a

necessity. Members of the Bench, the Bar and the litigants must aid each other to

create a technologically adept and friendly environment. The above directions must

be implemented by all concerned stakeholders in letter and in spirit.

18 List the proceedings on 6 November 2023.

..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [J B Pardiwala]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

October 06, 2023

-S-