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
SignaturehaveNot Verifiedfiled their affidavits:
Sanjay Kumar
1 “NCLAT”
2 “NCDRC”
3 “NGT”
(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 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”
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;
(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.
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:
(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
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
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,
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”
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.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[J B Pardiwala]
[Manoj Misra]
New Delhi; October 06, 2023 -S-