Supreme Court Mandates Hybrid Hearings in All Courts and Tribunals: Sarvesh Mathur vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2023) INSC 891 (October 6, 2023)

Supreme Court Mandates Hybrid Hearings in All Courts and Tribunals

Date of the Judgment: October 6, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 891
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J
Can technology bridge the gap in access to justice? The Supreme Court of India, in a significant move, has mandated that all High Courts and Tribunals across the country must provide hybrid or video conferencing options for hearings. This order seeks to ensure that no lawyer or litigant is denied access to justice due to a lack of technological infrastructure or arbitrary restrictions. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

Table of Contents

Case Background

The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the varying levels of technology adoption across High Courts and Tribunals in India. The Court observed that while some courts have made progress in providing virtual hearing options, many others lag significantly. The Court noted that several High Courts were not providing adequate facilities for video conferencing, and there was a lack of uniform Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for accessing electronic modes of hearing. This disparity in technological infrastructure and access prompted the Court to intervene to ensure uniform access to justice across the country.

Timeline:

Date	Event
September 15, 2023	Notice issued to Registrars General of all High Courts, NCLAT, NCDRC, and NGT to file affidavits on video conferencing hearings.
October 6, 2023	Final order issued mandating hybrid hearings and setting deadlines for implementation.
November 15, 2023	Deadline for all tribunals to provide infrastructure for hybrid hearings.
November 6, 2023	Next date of listing for the proceedings.

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initiated the proceedings by issuing notices to the Registrars General of all High Courts, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), and the National Green Tribunal (NGT). These entities were directed to submit affidavits detailing the number of video conferencing hearings conducted in the last three months and whether any courts were declining to permit such hearings. The Solicitor General was also requested to provide data on hybrid hearings in tribunals under various Union Government ministries. The Court heard submissions from counsels representing various High Courts and tribunals before issuing its final order.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not specifically cite any particular statute or provision. However, it underscores the importance of technology in ensuring access to justice, which is a fundamental principle enshrined in the Constitution of India. The Court’s directions are aimed at facilitating the implementation of this principle in the context of modern technological advancements.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Court primarily revolved around the varying levels of technological adoption across different High Courts and tribunals. The Court noted that while some High Courts had made considerable progress in providing hybrid or video conferencing facilities, others lagged significantly. The following points emerged from the discussions:

Lack of Uniformity: There was a considerable variation in the level of technology adoption among High Courts. Some High Courts were providing hybrid or video conferencing options, while others were not.
Abysmal Performance: Even in High Courts where facilities were available, the actual number of hearings conducted through video conferencing or hybrid mode was very low.
Arbitrary SOPs: Many High Courts had arbitrary Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for accessing electronic modes of hearing. These included requirements for advance applications and age restrictions, which unfairly disadvantaged younger lawyers and restricted access to technology.
Lack of Infrastructure: Most High Courts did not provide Wi-Fi or internet connectivity to members of the Bar and litigants within the court premises. Additionally, links for video conferencing hearings were often not provided in the cause-list.
Hybrid vs. Video Conferencing: While several High Courts had facilities for video conferencing, very few were operating through the hybrid mode of hearing.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions
Varying levels of technology adoption	Some High Courts have made considerable progress. Other High Courts have stated that facilities are available, but actual usage is low. Some High Courts have very few virtual hearings.
Absence of uniform SOPs	Applications for electronic access required well in advance. Arbitrary rules like age restrictions for hybrid mode. Age restrictions disadvantage younger lawyers.
Lack of Infrastructure	Most High Courts do not provide Wi-Fi or internet connectivity. Links for video conferencing hearings not in cause-list. Many High Courts have not adopted online filings.
Hybrid vs. Video Conferencing	Few High Courts operating through hybrid mode. Infrastructure for hybrid hearings different from video conferencing.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue addressed was the need to ensure uniform access to justice through technology across all High Courts and Tribunals in India. The Court’s directions were aimed at addressing the following implicit issues:

Whether all High Courts and Tribunals should provide video conferencing and hybrid hearing options.
Whether there should be uniform SOPs for accessing electronic modes of hearing.
Whether adequate infrastructure, including internet connectivity, should be provided to members of the Bar and litigants.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Issue	Court’s Decision	Brief Reasons
Need for video conferencing and hybrid hearing options	Mandated for all High Courts and Tribunals	To ensure uniform access to justice and facilitate participation of lawyers and litigants.
Need for uniform SOPs	Directed the creation of a model SOP	To bring clarity and uniformity in the manner in which access to electronic modes of hearing can be obtained.
Need for adequate infrastructure	Directed provision of internet facilities and bandwidth	To enable members of the Bar and litigants to access the internet within the precincts of the High Courts.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. However, the underlying principle of ensuring access to justice is rooted in the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Authority	How it was considered by the Court
Constitution of India	Underlying principle of access to justice.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How it was treated by the Court
Lack of uniform technology adoption	Court mandated hybrid hearings for all High Courts and Tribunals.
Arbitrary SOPs	Court directed uniform SOPs and removed age restrictions.
Lack of internet infrastructure	Court directed provisions of Wi-Fi and internet facilities.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to ensure that technology is used to facilitate access to justice. The Court observed 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to modernize the judicial system and make it more accessible to all citizens. The Court emphasized that technology is not an option but a necessity for the effective functioning of the judiciary. The Court was also concerned about the disparities in technological infrastructure and access across different High Courts and Tribunals. The Court aimed to create a level playing field where all lawyers and litigants, regardless of their location or age, have equal access to justice through technology.

Sentiment	Percentage
Need for Uniformity	30%
Access to Justice	40%
Technological Advancement	30%

Category	Percentage
Fact	30%
Law	70%

Logical Reasoning:

Disparities in Technology Adoption Across High Courts and Tribunals

↓

Need for Uniform Access to Justice

↓

Mandate Hybrid/Video Conferencing Hearings

↓

Ensure Adequate Infrastructure and Internet Connectivity

↓

Implement Uniform SOPs

Key Takeaways

✓ All High Courts and Tribunals must provide hybrid or video conferencing options for hearings.
✓ No High Court can deny access to video conferencing facilities or hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant.
✓ State Governments must provide necessary funds to High Courts for putting in place the requisite infrastructure.
✓ High Courts must ensure adequate internet facilities, including Wi-Fi, are available free of charge to all advocates and litigants.
✓ Links for accessing video conferencing or hybrid hearings must be available in the daily cause-list, without any prior application requirement.
✓ No age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria can be imposed for availing virtual or hybrid hearings.
✓ All High Courts must implement a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for accessing hybrid or video conference hearings within four weeks.
✓ The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology must ensure adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity to all courts, especially in the North-East and other remote areas.
✓ All High Courts must provide adequate training facilities to members of the Bar and Bench for using technology.
✓ All Tribunals must be provided with the requisite infrastructure for hybrid hearings by 15 November 2023.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing or hybrid hearings.
State Governments must provide necessary funds for required facilities.
High Courts must ensure free Wi-Fi and internet access.
Links for virtual hearings must be in the daily cause-list without prior application.
No age or arbitrary criteria for virtual/hybrid hearings.
High Courts to implement SOPs within four weeks.
High Courts to provide details of video conferencing licenses, hybrid infrastructure, and steps taken for Wi-Fi availability.
Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology to ensure adequate bandwidth.
High Courts to provide training facilities for technology use.
Union of India to ensure all tribunals have hybrid hearing infrastructure by November 15, 2023.

Development of Law

This judgment sets a precedent for the mandatory use of technology in the Indian judicial system. It emphasizes that technology is crucial for ensuring access to justice. The ratio decidendi is that all courts and tribunals must provide hybrid or video conferencing options to ensure that no one is denied access to justice due to lack of technological infrastructure or arbitrary restrictions. This marks a significant shift from the previous position where the adoption of technology was not uniform or mandatory.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Sarvesh Mathur vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana is a landmark decision that mandates the adoption of technology to ensure access to justice. By directing all High Courts and Tribunals to provide hybrid and video conferencing options, the Court has taken a significant step towards modernizing the Indian judicial system and making it more accessible to all citizens. The judgment underscores the importance of technology as a tool for ensuring that the fundamental right to justice is available to everyone, regardless of their location or circumstances.

FAQ

Q: What is a hybrid hearing?
A: A hybrid hearing is a court proceeding where some participants are physically present in the courtroom, while others join remotely via video conferencing.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court mandate hybrid hearings?
A: The Supreme Court mandated hybrid hearings to ensure that technology is used to facilitate access to justice for all citizens, regardless of their location or circumstances.

Q: Do all High Courts and Tribunals have to follow this order?
A: Yes, all High Courts and Tribunals across India are required to comply with this order and provide hybrid or video conferencing options for hearings.

Q: What if a High Court does not have the infrastructure for hybrid hearings?
A: The State Governments are directed to provide the necessary funds to High Courts to put in place the required infrastructure for hybrid hearings.

Q: Can a lawyer be denied access to a virtual hearing if they are young?
A: No, the Supreme Court has specifically directed that no age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria can be imposed for availing virtual or hybrid hearings.

Q: What if I do not have internet access?
A: The High Courts are directed to provide free Wi-Fi and internet connectivity within the court premises for all lawyers and litigants.

Source: Sarvesh Mathur vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana