SARVESH MATHURversusTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

                  [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1117 : 2023 INSC 891



                              CASE DETAILS

                           SARVESH MATHUR
                                       v.
           THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF
                   PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                 (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2023)
                            OCTOBER 06, 2023
    [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA AND
                   MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
                               HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: Denial of access to video conferencing
facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode.
     Directions by Supreme Court – Conduction of hearings through
video conferencing/hybrid mode – Considerable variation between High
Courts in the level of adoption of technology – Position of the tribunals
under various ministries of the Union Government:
      Held: No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities
or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant
desirous of availing of such a facility – All State Governments shall provide
necessary funds to the High Courts to put into place the facilities requisite for
that purpose within the time frame as indicated – High Courts shall ensure
that adequate internet facilities, including Wi-Fi facilities, with sufficient
bandwidth are made available free of charge to all advocates and litigants
appearing before the High Courts within the precincts of the High Court
complex – The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid
hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of each court and
there shall be no requirement of making prior applications – No High Court
shall impose an age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria for availing
of virtual/hybrid hearings – All the High Courts shall put into place an
SOP within a period of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video
conference hearings, directions issued for its effectuation – High Courts shall
place on the record the details as directed – Union Ministry of Electronics
                                     1117
1118          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 13 S.C.R.


& Information Technology to coordinate with the Department of Justice
to ensure that adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided
to all the courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh
and Jammu and Kashmir to facilitate access to online hearings – High
Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are made available to
the members of the Bar and Bench – Union of India shall ensure that on or
before 15.11.2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure
for hybrid hearings – All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement of
hybrid hearings no later than the said date – Directions governing the High
Courts shall also apply to the Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries
of the Union Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT,
NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs – Additional Solicitor General
shall immediately contact the Chairperson of the APTEL and take necessary
steps on behalf of the Union of India to ensure that video conferencing/
hybrid facilities are made available at APTEL within a period of one month
from the date of this order. [Paras 14, 15]
        OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
               ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 351 of 2023.
       Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
       Appearances:
       Petitioner-in-person
     K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Nidhesh Gupta, Guru Krishna Kumar, Virender
Ganda, Sr. Advs., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Chitransh
Sharma, Shashwat Anand, Amrish Kumar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza
Bar, Tushar Bathija, Siddhant Saroha, Sidhant Awasthy, Praveer Singh,
Parth Jain, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms.
Kshitij Singh, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Nikhil Goel, P. I. Jose, James
P. Thomas, Ravi Sagar, Gaurav Agrawal, Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita
Singh, Harshit Goel, Siddhant Singh, Sahil Tagotra, Shibashish Misra,
Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Deepayan Mandal, Naman
Varma, Mridul Bansal, K. Parameshwar, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti,
Chinmay Kalgaonkar, T. G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Rituraj
          SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL                        1119
             HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA


Biswas, P. D. Gupta, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Mukul Kumar, Sandeep Sudhakar
Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Tushar D. Bhelkar, Akshay Subhash Jagtap,
Swapnil Anil Walde, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs.
Shashi Pathak, Apoorv Kurup, Shivansh Dwivedi, Ms. Kirti Dadheech,
Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Akhil Hasija, Himanshu Shekhar,
Parth Shekhar, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Shubham Singh, Ms. Enakshi
Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon Siddhanta, S. Silambarasan, Ms. Uttara
Babbar, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Likhi Chand
Bonsle, Ms. Komal Mundhra, Ms. Anagha N. Sharma, Hari Vishnu Tiwari,
Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Ms. Shreya Bansal,
Aniket Singh, Vipul Ganda, Vishal Ganda, S.K. Giri, Satyajit A. Desai,
Siddharth Gautam, Ms. Akanksha Mathur, Ms. Nirti Dua, Anandeb Mitra,
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Respondent.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                  ORDER
      1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 15 September 2023, notice was issued
to the Registrars General of all the High Courts, the National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal,1 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission,2 and the National Green Tribunal.3 They were directed to file
an affidavit detailing (i) how many video conferencing hearings have taken
place in the last three months; and (ii) whether any courts are declining
to permit video conferencing hearings. Further, the Solicitor General was
requested to assist the court with data on hybrid hearings in the tribunals
under various ministries of the Union Government on the next date of
hearing.
     2. Pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2023, the following High
Courts have filed their affidavits:
     (i) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;
     (ii) High Court of Judicature at Bombay;


1   “NCLAT”
2    “NCDRC”
3   “NGT”
1120          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       (iii) High Court at Calcutta;
       (iv) High Court of Chhattisgarh;
       (v) Gauhati High Court;
       (vi) High Court of Gujarat;
       (vii) High Court of Himachal Pradesh;
       (viii) High Court of Jharkhand;
       (ix) High Court of Karnataka;
       (x) High Court of Kerala;
       (xi) High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
       (xii) High Court of Judicature at Madras;
       (xiii) High Court of Meghalaya;
       (xiv) High Court of Orissa;
       (xv) High Court of Judicature at Patna;
       (xvi) High Court of Punjab and Haryana;
       (xvii) High Court of Rajasthan;
       (xviii) High Court of Sikkim;
       (xix) High Court of Andhra Pradesh;
       (xx) High Court for the State of Telangana;
       (xxi) High Court of Uttarakhand; and
       (xxii) High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
      3. Mr Gautam Narayan, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court
of Delhi states that the response would be filed within a week. Permission
is granted to do so.
      4. The High Court of Manipur and the High Court of Tripura have not
filed any response until date. They are granted a further extension of time
until 13 October 2023 to file their responses failing which the Registrars
General of the High Courts concerned and the Registrars (IT) shall personally
remain present on the next date of hearing.
             SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL                   1121
                HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA


      5. Mr Himanshu Shekhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the NGT
states that hybrid hearings are being held by the NGT both at the Principal
Bench at Delhi and at the Regional Benches. Likewise, it has been stated
by Mr K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the tribunal
is holding hybrid hearings.
      6. As regards the NCLAT, it has been stated that infrastructural
requirements have to be upgraded and funds have been sought from the
Union Government. The Additional Solicitor General states that requisite
funds shall be made available to the NCLAT. We direct that a joint meeting
be held between the Secretaries of the Ministries of Finance and Corporate
Affairs with the President of the NCLAT within a period of one week and
that all pending issues, including the availability of funds are sorted out
so as to enable the NCLAT to conduct hybrid hearings. Simultaneously, a
meeting shall also be held with the Chairperson of the National Company
Law Tribunal4 within a period of two weeks. The NCLAT and NCLT shall
ensure that hybrid hearings are made available at the option of the appearing
lawyers, or the litigants, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks
from the date of this order.
      7. Mr K M Nataraj states that a tabulated statement indicating the
position of other Tribunals falling under various Ministries of the Union
Government shall also be placed on the record by the next date of hearing.
     8. During the course of the hearing, we have heard the following
counsel on behalf of the High Courts:
     (i)      Mr K Parameshar for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;
     (ii)     Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General has appeared on behalf of
              the State of Maharashtra with Mr Sandeep Deshmukh for the
              High Court of Judicature at Bombay;
     (iii)    Mr Kunal Chatterji for the High Court at Calcutta;
     (iv)     Mr Apoorv Kurup for the High Court of Chhattisgarh;



4   “NCLT”
1122          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       (v)    Mr P I Jose for the Gauhati High Court;
       (vi)   Mr Nikhil Goel for the High Court of Gujarat;
       (vii) Mr Tapesh Kumar Singh for the High Court of Jharkhand;
       (viii) Ms Anagha N Sharma for the High Court of Karnataka;
       (ix)   Mr T G Narayanan Nair for the High Court of Kerala;
       (x)    Mr Arjun Garg for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
       (xi)   Mr S. Gurukrishna Kumar, senior counsel for the High
              Court of Judicature at Madras;
       (xii) Mr Sanjai Kumar Pathak, counsel for the High Court of
             Meghalaya;
       (xiii) Mr Shibashish Misra for the High Court of Orissa;
       (xiv) Mr Gaurav Agrawal for the High Court of Judicature at
             Patna;
       (xv) Mr Nidhesh Gupta, senior counsel for the High Court of
            Punjab and Haryana;
       (xvi) Dr Charu Mathur for the High Court of Rajasthan;
       (xvii) Ms Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta for the High Court
              of Sikkim; and
       (xviii)   Ms Uttara Babbar for the High Court for the States of
              Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
       9. From the discussions which have taken place before the Court,
it is evident that there is a considerable variation between High Courts
in the level of adoption of technology. Some High Courts have made
considerable progress and hearings are being provided through the
hybrid mode or video conferencing. Other High Courts have stated
that facilities are available. However, when the statistics in regard to
the actual number of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode
have been disclosed, it appears that the performances are abysmal. For
instance, in one High Court, as few as 3 hearings have been conducted
in the virtual mode in the last three months.
         SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL                    1123
            HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA


      10. In most High Courts, the problem is compounded by the
absence of a uniform SOP which brings clarity to the manner in which
access to the electronic mode of hearing can be obtained. An application
for electronic access has to be submitted well in advance, in certain
cases, three days before the date of commencement of the hearing. The
arbitrariness of the existing SOPs is also borne out by rules such as
hearing being allowed in hybrid mode for advocates/parties-in-person
who are 65 years of age or above. The age restriction would unfairly
disadvantage younger lawyers and restrict access to technology only in
the hands of the seniors at the Bar. Such criteria do not bear any nexus
to the aim of using technology to increase access to courtrooms.
      11. Further, most High Courts do not provide Wi-Fi or internet
connectivity to the members of the Bar and litigants within the precincts
of the High Court. In the absence of adequate connectivity, it is not
possible for the members of the Bar and litigants to access the internet
within the precincts of the High Courts. Links for video conferencing
hearings are not provided in the cause-list. Many High Courts have not
yet adopted online filings which would complement the hearings through
video conferencing or in the hybrid mode. We are also concerned about
the absence of adequate internet activity in the North-East States.
     12. During the course of the hearing, it has also emerged that
whereas several High Courts do have facilities for video conferencing,
very few High Courts are operating through the hybrid mode of hearing.
The infrastructure which is required for conducting hybrid hearings
may be of a different order as compared to the infrastructure for video
conferencing.
     13. Bearing in mind the above situation as it has emerged across
the country in the High Courts, we nominate Mr Gaurav Agrawal and
Mr K Parameshwar, counsel, as amici curiae. The amici curiae are
requested to collate all the information which has been provided in the
affidavits which have been filed before this Court in a tabulated chart
so that further effective orders can be passed by this Court. The amici
curiae may also distribute the work in connection with the High Courts
between them and individually contact the Registrars General/Registrars
(IT) of the High Courts so that necessary information can be placed
1124           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 13 S.C.R.


before this Court in that regard. The amici curiae shall also place
before this Court the steps which have been taken by all the High
Courts to facilitate e-filing.
       14. In this backdrop, we issue the following directions:
       (i)     After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no High
               Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or
               hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or
               litigant desirous of availing of such a facility;
       (ii)    All State Governments shall provide necessary funds to the High
               Courts to put into place the facilities requisite for that purpose
               within the time frame indicated above;
       (iii)   The High Courts shall ensure that adequate internet facilities,
               including Wi-Fi facilities, with sufficient bandwidth are made
               available free of charge to all advocates and litigants appearing
               before the High Courts within the precincts of the High Court
               complex;
       (iv)    The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid
               hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of
               each court and there shall be no requirement of making prior
               applications. No High Court shall impose an age requirement
               or any other arbitrary criteria for availing of virtual/hybrid
               hearings;
       (v)     All the High Courts shall put into place an SOP within a period
               of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video conference
               hearings. In order to effectuate this, Justice Rajiv Shakdher,
               Hon’ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi is requested to prepare
               a model SOP, in conjunction with Mr Gaurav Agrawal and Mr
               K Parameshwar, based on the SOP which has been prepared by
               the e-Committee. Once the SOP is prepared, it shall be placed
               on the record of these proceedings and be circulated in advance
               to all the High Courts so that a uniform SOP is adopted across
               all the High Courts for facilitating video conference/hybrid
               hearings;
        SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL                      1125
           HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA


(vi)     All the High Courts shall, on or before the next date of listing,
         place on the record the following details:
        (a) The number of video conferencing licences which have been
            obtained by the High Court and the nature of the hybrid
            infrastructure;
        (b) A court-wise tabulation of the number of video conference/
            hybrid hearings which have taken place since 1 April 2023;
            and
        (c) The steps which have been taken to ensure that Wi-Fi/
            internet facilities are made available within every High
            Court to members of the Bar and litigants appearing in
            person in compliance with the above directions.
(vii)    The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology is
         directed to coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure
         that adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided
         to all the courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal
         Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir so as to facilitate access to
         online hearings;
(viii) All High Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are
       made available to the members of the Bar and Bench so as to
       enable all practising advocates and Judges of each High Court
       to be conversant with the use of technology. Such training
       facilities shall be set up by all the High Courts under intimation
       to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this
       order; and
(ix)     The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15 November
         2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure for
         hybrid hearings. All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement
         of hybrid hearings no later than 15 November 2023. The
         directions governing the High Courts shall also apply to the
         Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries of the Union
         Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT,
         NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs.
1126           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 13 S.C.R.


       15. Notice shall also be issued to the Registrar In-charge of the
             Appellate Tribunal for Electricity5. Mr K M Nataraj, Additional
             Solicitor General shall immediately contact the Chairperson
             of the APTEL and take necessary steps on behalf of the Union
             of India to ensure that video conferencing/hybrid facilities are
             made available at APTEL within a period of one month from
             the date of this order.
      16. Above all, it must be noted 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. Placing fetters on hybrid hearings, like mandating an age
criteria, requiring prior application, and frequent denial of access to virtual
participants has the direct effect of discouraging lawyers and litigants to
use technology. Not only does this affect the efficiency and access to courts,
but it also sends out the misguided message that access to courts can be
restricted at whim to those who seek justice.
       17. The use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an
option but a necessity. Members of the Bench, the Bar and the litigants must
aid each other to create a technologically adept and friendly environment.
The above directions must be implemented by all concerned stakeholders
in letter and in spirit.
       18. List the proceedings on 6 November 2023.


Headnotes prepared by:                                          Directions issued.
Divya Pandey




5    “APTEL”