COVID: PIL in Supreme Court challenges reduced working hours of Bombay High Court

A public interest litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Bombay High Court reducing its working hours at the principal Bench to three hours a day in view of COVID-19..Pursuant to the SOP, the High Court is currently sitting only from 12 noon to 3 pm to hear cases.The plea filed by activist Ghanshyam Upadhyay stated that due to the SOP, the principal bench of the High Court has been "functioning only for namesake" causing hardships to the litigants and advocates. The plea stated that the fundamental rights of citizens are being jeopardized and violated and it was a "matter of great concern and public importance". While acknowledging the effectiveness of virtual hearing, Upadhyay expressed that there seemed to be no justification for reducing court hours for hearing matters. "The reason seem to be reduce risk for all concerned being infected with new variants, however, it has been forgotten that if all the court are made functional for 3 hours in a day, then also such risk is enviable," Upadhyay contended in his plea..The plea also raised grievance against another SOP issued by the Registrar of the High Court which pertained to the functioning of the subordinate courts in the districts of Mumbai, Pune, Raigad, Alibaug and Thane between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with the presence 50 percent of the staff every day on rotation.The SOP directed the lower courts to hear remand, bail matters of under trial prisoners and urgent matters through physical hearing for four hours; while matters for recording evidence and hearing arguments were directed to be taken through virtual platform..Upadhyay stated in his plea that to the best of his knowledge there is no requisite infrastructures in these courts for hearing matters through virtual platform. "It is very shameful that subordinate courts of the financial capital of the country and its adjoining cities, which are considered and believed to be most advanced and forward cities in all respects amongst all the cities of the country, lack infrastructures for hearing the matters on virtual platform, which are very easy and cheap to procure," the petition stated. .Upadhyay pointed out that the High Court failed to take into consideration "the ground level reality" that the subordinate courts mentioned in the plea did not conduct hearing through virtual platform even during the first and second waves of COVID.While filing the present petition, Upadhyay discovered that while a few courts in the City Civil and Sessions Court had started hearing matters virtually, most of the judges preferred to conduct physical hearings only..Upadhyay submitted that due to the SOP, hearing of matters in districts have reduced drastically and almost at standstill and with the result, litigants and advocates are made to suffer. "Many judges in the subordinate courts have been expressing complete insensitiveness/ insensibility; perhaps on account of their own safety from deadly virus, are not interested in hearing matters and making every attempt to avoid hearing," the plea stated..Upadhyay, therefore, sought the following reliefs:quash and set aside the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued on January 3 and 10, 2022 by the High Court;directions to all courts in the State to function full time through virtual platform by laying down guidelines without curtailing the court working hours;pending the PIL, stay the execution and implementation of the SOP.