SC Bar terms SOPS on physical hearings arbitrary, non-starter
NEW DELHI: Less than 48 hours before the Supreme Court was set to begin physical hearings in a limited number of cases, the biggest body of lawyers practising in the top court – the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) – termed the standard operating procedures (SOP) issued by the Court a “non-starter”, and contended that lawyers were not willing to take the option of physical hearings with so many conditions attached.
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana on Monday, SCBA president and senior advocate Vikas Singh said, “In our view, the SOP is a non-starter as our members would not like to take the option for physical hearing with so many conditions attached.”
The SCBA also called for a wider opening up in the court, citing how the Covid case positivity rate in the Capital was down to 0.04%, and several other sectors have already reopened.
Singh termed the SOP a “mere lip service”. “Ultimately the effort seems to be to ensure that the courts do not open. This is a mere lip service to reopening the Supreme Court,” Singh told HT.
The senior lawyer added: “The bar association began vaccination drive for its members in March and now most of the law
yers have got both doses of the vaccine. The staff of the Supreme Court have already been vaccinated by the administration. So, what is the purpose of issuing this kind of an SOP?” Singh said it will be for the SCBA members to individually decide if they want to attend physical hearings with so many conditions attached.
The SOP released by the Supreme Court on Sunday said that lawyers opting for physical hearing of cases would require a special entry pass and had to exercise the option well in advance to the registry of the Court. The physical hearing of cases was restricted to hearing of regular appeals or old matters on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, beginning September 1. On the remaining days (Mondays and Fridays), the hearing of fresh/miscellaneous matters would strictly be through videoconferencing, the SOP said.
The guidelines also restricted entry in the court to 20 lawyers at a time, and said that in matters where more than 20 persons appear physically, the concerned apex court bench will have the discretion to adjourn the matter and hear the case through videoconferencing mode.
The Registry of the Supreme Court met bar association leaders earlier this month and took their view on opening up courts for physical hearing. The circular of the court releasing the SOP noted the decision to resume physical hearings (with hybrid option) was in continuation of the decision of the court taken in March this year, and on consideration of the requests received from the bar associations, along with the recommendation by a sevenjudge Committee of Supreme Court judges recommending limited physical hearing of cases in August last year.
Opposing the SOP on multiple grounds, the SCBA letter said, “The system of issuing special passes should be dispensed with in the SOP.” It said the SOP should be only with regard to entry of courtrooms, and not restrict the movement of lawyers in the high security zone, which included the corridors, libraries, bar rooms and canteens. “The SOP prohibits the entry of lawyers to the high security area without special passes, which will, in turn dissuade our members from applying for physical hearing,” it said.
On the restriction imposed on 20 lawyers per courtroom, SCBA expressed reservations, suggesting that the limitation should be based on the size of courtroom. “The number of 20 can be justified only in the smallest courtrooms.” On the aspect of adjourning the matter at the last minute where number of litigants/lawyers in a case exceeds 20, the SCBA said, “A decision on adjourning the matter should be taken before listing the matter.”
SCBA has more than 13,000 lawyers as its members.
The association, however, emphasized the need to begin physical hearing of cases.
It said, “While the bar is also apprehensive about the third wave (of Covid pandemic)…the said fear does not justify restricting the functioning of the Supreme Court now.” SCBA supported resumption of normal functioning of court at the earliest, as it said the Supreme Court, being the apex court of the country, should be a guiding star for other high courts and lower judicial courts in the country.
It said Covid-19 is not going to end completely, and lawyers must learn to live with it. With the appointment of nine new judges in the top court, SCBA said that more benches will be available for disposal of cases.