Case Title: In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during COVID-19 Pandemic
The Supreme Court issued a number of directives to speed up the operation of courts via video conferencing during the COVID-19 shutdown.
The need of maintaining social distance while allowing unrestricted access to justice was stressed by a bench that included former Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, and L. Nageswara Rao. It stated: -
"Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Constitution of India. The challenges occasioned by the outbreak of COVID-19 have to be addressed while preserving the constitutional commitment to ensuring the delivery of and access to justice to those who seek it…Court hearings in the congregation must necessarily become an exception during this period."
Thus, the bench issued the following directive in accordance with its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution:
All actions taken by this Court and the High Courts to lessen the requirement that all parties physically be present within court premises and to ensure that courts operate in accordance with social distancing norms and best public health practices are regarded to be legitimate;
The Indian Supreme Court and all High Courts are empowered to take the necessary actions to enable the effective use of video conferencing technology in the legal system;
Every High Court is empowered to choose the procedures that are appropriate for the temporary switch to the use of video conferencing technology in accordance with the unique characteristics of the judicial system in each State and the dynamically changing public health situation;
In order to guarantee that any complaints about the calibre or audibility of feed are communicated during the procedure or as soon as it is over, the involved courts must keep a hotline; if they do not, no further grievances against it will be accepted.
Each State's District Court must use the video conferencing method that the relevant High Court has approved.
For those litigants who lack the resources or access to video conferencing services, the court will properly notify them and make the facilities available. Courts have the authority to appoint amicus curiaes when required and to provide them with video conferencing equipment.
Video conferencing shall be primarily used for hearing arguments, whether at the trial stage or at the appellate stage until proper regulations are developed by the High Courts. Under no circumstances may video conferencing be used to record evidence without both parties' approval. The presiding officer must make sure that there is sufficient space between any two people in the courtroom if it is required to record evidence there.
The presiding officer has the authority to impose restrictions on who may enter the courtroom or where the advocates may deliver their arguments. A party to the case may not be denied access by the presiding officer unless that person is ill with an infectious disease. However, the presiding officer shall have the authority to limit the numbers if there are numerous litigants. When it is impossible to limit the number, the presiding officer may, at his discretion, adjourn the proceedings.
The bench asked for full cooperation from all courts, judges, litigants, parties, personnel, and other stakeholders in order to successfully execute the aforementioned instructions and prevent the spread of viruses on court premises.