Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court, on January 2, 2025, directed the Union Government to submit a detailed report on the implementation of video conferencing and hybrid hearing facilities across tribunals operating under its jurisdiction. The Court stated the necessity of ensuring access to justice through technology, enabling litigants and advocates to participate in proceedings irrespective of their inability to attend physical hearings.

In its order dated October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court had issued detailed instructions to High Courts and tribunals to establish and operationalize virtual hearing mechanisms. The order provided that no High Court could deny access to video conferencing or hybrid hearings to members of the Bar or litigants seeking to utilize such facilities. State governments were directed to allocate adequate funding for this purpose, including the installation of internet facilities and the provision of free Wi-Fi in court complexes.

The October order further required High Courts to adopt a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for hybrid hearings. Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the Delhi High Court, in collaboration with amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal and K. Parameshwar, was tasked with developing a model SOP to ensure uniformity in its implementation across jurisdictions. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, in coordination with the Department of Justice, was instructed to address connectivity issues in remote regions, including the North-East, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir.

The directions also applied to tribunals such as the CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT, NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs, and DRTs, which were required to establish hybrid hearing systems by November 15, 2023. The Court mandated that these tribunals align their facilities with the standards set for High Courts to ensure a uniform judicial infrastructure.

During the hearing on January 2, 2025, the Court considered submissions regarding the progress of these directions. While compliance by High Courts was largely noted, significant deficiencies in tribunals were reported. The amicus curiae highlighted the lack of comprehensive infrastructure for video conferencing in several tribunals, which continues to impede access for litigants and advocates.

Senior Counsel V. Giri submitted that virtual hearings had provided significant benefits, particularly for women advocates who face logistical challenges in attending physical hearings. The Court, acknowledging these submissions, stated, “The facility to argue through virtual mode has provided an important platform for advocates, overcoming logistical and geographical challenges.”

The Court upheld its prior directives, stating, “No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or hybrid hearings to any member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing such a facility.” The Court further observed, “Access to justice must transcend physical limitations. Virtual and hybrid mechanisms are essential to modernizing the judiciary and addressing the needs of all stakeholders.”

The Supreme Court directed the Union Government to submit a report within four weeks detailing the availability of video conferencing and hybrid hearing facilities in tribunals. The report must include the number of video conferencing licenses procured, the nature and extent of hybrid hearing infrastructure, and the measures taken to provide internet connectivity and free Wi-Fi within tribunal premises. Advance copies of the report are to be shared with the amicus curiae for review.

The Court also mandated that High Courts and tribunals submit records detailing the steps taken to comply with its October 2023 directions. The establishment of training facilities for advocates and judges was emphasized to ensure effective participation in hybrid hearings. Referring to its previous orders, the Court stated, “Adequate training facilities must be provided to the members of the Bar and Bench to enable their effective participation in hybrid hearings.”

The matter will be listed for further hearing after six weeks, allowing the Court to review the progress made by the Union Government and other stakeholders.

Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur v. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 351/2023
Bench: Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

[View/Download order]