Enhancing Access to Justice through Mandatory Hybrid Hearings: Commentary on Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General High Court Of Punjab And Haryana

Introduction

The case of Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General High Court Of Punjab And Haryana (2023 INSC 891) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on October 6, 2023, addresses critical issues surrounding the adoption and uniform implementation of technology in judicial proceedings. The petitioner, Sarvesh Mathur, challenges the inconsistencies and inadequacies in the provision of video conferencing and hybrid hearings across various High Courts and Tribunals in India. The primary focus of the case is to ensure that technological advancements are leveraged to enhance access to justice, particularly in the wake of challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The key issues revolve around the disparities in the implementation of video conferencing facilities, the absence of standardized operating procedures (SOPs), and the infrastructural deficiencies that hinder effective hybrid hearings. Plaintiffs include Registrars General of multiple High Courts, and the case has broad implications for the judicial system's technological infrastructure.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive directive on October 6, 2023, mandating all High Courts and relevant Tribunals to adopt and uniformly implement video conferencing and hybrid hearings. The court observed significant variations in the adoption levels of technology across High Courts, with some making notable progress while others lagged due to infrastructural and procedural inadequacies.

Key directives from the judgment include:

Mandating High Courts to provide video conferencing and hybrid hearing facilities without arbitrary restrictions.
Ensuring uniform SOPs across all High Courts to streamline the process of accessing electronic hearing modes.
Guaranteeing adequate internet and Wi-Fi facilities within High Court premises for advocates and litigants.
Allocating necessary funds to High Courts and Tribunals to upgrade infrastructural requirements.
Requiring training for judges and advocates to effectively utilize technological tools in hearings.
Setting strict deadlines for the implementation of these measures, with specific dates for compliance.

The judgment underscores the indispensability of technology in ensuring uninterrupted access to justice and sets forth strict guidelines to overcome existing barriers.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the judgment text does not explicitly cite previous cases, it implicitly builds upon the legal principles established in landmark judgments that advocate for the modernization of the judiciary. Notably, it resonates with the Supreme Court’s earlier directives during the COVID-19 pandemic, which emphasized the necessity of virtual hearings to maintain judicial efficiency and accessibility.

The case aligns with the Rajan Gogte vs. Union of India (2020) verdict, where the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of technological integration in courts to ensure timely justice. It also echoes the sentiments of the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017) case, which underscored the Right to Privacy and, by extension, the right to access legal remedies through modern means.

These precedents collectively underpin the court’s directive in Sarvesh Mathur, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to embracing technology for enhanced access to justice.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning centers on mitigating the barriers to justice exacerbated by technological disparities among High Courts. The court meticulously identified the inconsistencies in the adoption of video conferencing and hybrid hearings, attributing them to inadequate infrastructure, absence of standardized procedures, and restrictive policies.

By examining the affidavit data and responses from various High Courts, the court discerned a pattern of inefficiency and arbitrary restrictions that hindered the effective use of technology. The legal principles applied emphasize the fundamental right to access courts, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to timely and accessible justice.

The court also invoked the doctrine of judicial efficiency and the necessity of adapting to contemporary challenges, such as the global pandemic, which necessitated alternative modes of conducting hearings to prevent the complete shutdown of the judicial system.

Impact

The judgment is set to have a profound impact on the judicial landscape in India. By mandating uniformity in the adoption of hybrid hearings, it ensures that all litigants, regardless of their geographical location or the High Court they approach, have equitable access to judicial proceedings. This move is anticipated to:

Enhance Judicial Accessibility: Facilitating video conferencing and hybrid hearings ensures broader participation, especially for individuals who may find it difficult to attend in person.
Improve Judicial Efficiency: Reduced need for physical court appearances can expedite the scheduling and resolution of cases.
Promote Uniformity: Standardizing SOPs across High Courts eliminates procedural ambiguities and fosters a cohesive approach to technological integration.
Stimulate Infrastructure Development: Financial allocations and directives will likely result in significant upgrades to court infrastructures, benefiting overall judicial operations.

Additionally, this judgment sets a precedent that may influence future legal reforms aimed at further modernizing the judiciary, such as the implementation of e-filing systems and digital case management.

Complex Concepts Simplified

            Hybrid Hearings: A judicial process where some participants are present in the courtroom while others join remotely via video conferencing. This mode combines traditional in-person hearings with virtual participation.
        

            Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): Detailed, written instructions designed to achieve uniformity in the performance of specific functions within the courts. SOPs ensure consistency and clarity in procedures across different jurisdictions.
        

            Video Conferencing Licences: Permissions granted to courts to use video conferencing technology for conducting hearings. These licences are essential for facilitating remote participation.
        

            Amici Curiae: Literally “friends of the court,” these are individuals or organizations appointed to assist the court by providing expertise or information relevant to the case, although they are not parties to the litigation.
        

            Tribunals: Specialized judicial bodies that adjudicate specific types of disputes, such as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for environmental matters or the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for corporate disputes.
        

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General High Court Of Punjab And Haryana represents a pivotal step towards modernizing the Indian judiciary. By enforcing uniform adoption of video conferencing and hybrid hearings, the court not only addresses existing infrastructural and procedural deficiencies but also propels the judicial system into a technologically adept future.

The directives issued ensure that access to justice is not hindered by geographical or logistical constraints, thereby reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to inclusivity and efficiency. Furthermore, the emphasis on standardized procedures and infrastructural investment highlights the court’s proactive approach in overcoming challenges posed by rapid technological advancements.

Ultimately, this judgment underscores the indispensable role of technology in enhancing the accessibility and functionality of judicial processes. It serves as a clarion call for all stakeholders within the legal system to embrace technological innovations, ensuring that the courts remain accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs of a modern society.