The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked how the Bar is divided on the issue of virtual hearing of cases in courts and there is a difference in opinion among lawyers when it comes to courts reverting to physical hearing of cases.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant reflected on the same when a plea challenging the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to revert to full physical functioning from August 24 to the exclusion of virtual mode of hearing cases, was mentioned for early listing.
"We will look into it. Some want courts to open, others don't," the Bench remarked.
The remark was made after advocate Siddharth R Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, All India Jurists Association pointed out that the Uttarakhand High Court has decided to stop virtual hearing altogether causing grave inconvenience to litigants and lawyers.
Advocate Gupta further apprised the court that Chairperson of the Supreme Court e-committee, Justice DY Chandrachud had requested High Courts all across the country to stick to hybrid mode of hearing.
"High Courts one after the are closing down virtual hearings. First uttarakhand then Gujarat. Let them continue on a hybrid model" Gupta said.
After the decrease in COVID case, various High Courts have been resuming physical hearing of cases though many High Courts allow lawyers to appear virtually too if they so desire.
The Uttarakhand High Court had, however, issued a notification on August 16 mandating that all lawyers will have to appear physically from August 24.
The petition by All India Jurists Association besides challenging the decision of the High Court also sought a declaration that right to participate in court proceedings through virtual courts via video conference is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution.
It, therefore, sought a direction to restrain all High Courts from denying access to lawyers through virtual mode of hearing and video conference on the ground of availability of the option of physical hearing.