Caveat filed in SC opposing Association of All Indian Jurists and advocates plea over U'khand HC's order on virtual mode hearing

New Delhi [India], August 25 : A lawyer, Vishal Thakre, on Tuesday filed a caveat before the Supreme Court and opposed the petition filed by the Association of All Indian Jurists and advocates (AAIJA) on Monday against the order of High Court of Uttarakhand on virtual mode hearing.
AAIJA, which represents around 5,000 lawyers across the country, had filed a writ petition before the top court on Monday seeking an immediate stay of the administrative order passed by the registrar general of the Uttarakhand High Court terminating the functioning of virtual courts and thereby compelling all the lawyers to conduct their cases through physical mode only.
Thakre has filed the caveat before the Supreme Court and opposed the petition filed by AAIJA. Thakre has filed the caveat before the Supreme Court through Sanjeev Malhotra Advocate On Record (AOR) and drawn by advocate Pradeep Kumar Yadav.
Thakre in his petition said that he needed to be heard in the case and sought a direction from the Supreme court for all the state High Courts that the Court work and functioning must be on physical mode and also praying to the bar members to oppose it, therefore, Supreme Court must pass directions for physical hearing.
The petition, filed before the Supreme Court, by AAIJA, yesterday sought a direction to declare virtual court hearing as a fundamental right, and continue virtual hearings in all the High Courts.
The plea filed by AAIJA specifically challenged the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court to revert to full physical functioning from August 24 to the exclusion of virtual mode of hearing cases.
"The petition filed by AAIJA raised an important plea of declaration of 'access to virtual courts' by both the counsel as well as the client as a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, which cannot be terminated casually and cursorily by the High Court through an administrative order," the petition filed before the Supreme Court by AAIJA read.
The petition, filed by AAIJA, which has also impeded registrar generals of three High Courts of the country -- Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bombay High Court and the Kerala High Court -- pleaded that the SOPs on paper though permit virtual hearings, but many Courtrooms are compelling and coercing lawyers to appear only physically by not conveniently providing joining links virtually for attending their cases through a virtual mode in the hybrid model adopted by them.
The petition of AAIJA also said that post COVID-19 pandemic, after commissioning and installation of the entire virtual court infrastructure in the Constitutional Courts, (in the High Courts of the country), if there is any denial of access to the facility of conducting cases through virtual mode, then this is a denial of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 read with 21 of the Constitution of India.
It thus sought a direction restraining the Registrar Generals of all the 4 High Courts from denying access to virtual courts through Video Conferencing to any lawyer intending to opt for the same only on the ground that physical hearing in the concerned High Court has commenced and the said mode of physical hearing must be preferred, the petition of AAIJA said.
The Uttarakhand High Court recently through its registrar general passed an administrative Order which read as, the Court is pleased to direct that the Court will resume normal judicial work only through the physical mode from August 24, and no request for a virtual hearing will be entertained by the High Court.
The petition of AAIJA further said that the Preamble of the Constitution of India, read with Articles 38 and 39 enjoin the Constitutional Courts of the country to make justice accessible, affordable and economic in nature where everybody can have easy and convenient access to the same, the petition said.
The petitioners have thus pleaded that access to virtual courts for dispensation of justice by the counsel or the client is an essential facet of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and thus cannot be lightly denied to the lawyers.
The journalists in turn have pleaded that the denial to virtual access of courts in fact has the effect of denying them the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as they would be denied their right to report the proceedings on a real-time and live basis, the petition of AAIJA said.
Referring to the judgment of M R Vijay Bhaskar against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), the journalists have claimed that if access to virtual courts is wiped out, then exercise of fundamental Rights would become impossible, the petition filed by AAIJA before the Supreme Court said.