New Delhi, 6th September 2024 – The Supreme Court of India, in a significant decision, has dismissed a plea seeking the establishment of virtual hearing facilities and evening courts across all district courts in the country.
The Court ruled that implementing a “one-size-fits-all” approach is impractical, given the complexities of India’s vast and diverse judicial system.
The plea was brought before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The petitioner’s request included two main demands: the introduction of virtual hearings or video conferencing in all district courts and the establishment of evening courts to ease the workload of the judiciary.
Virtual Hearings
In response to the plea, CJI Chandrachud noted that the country’s judicial landscape is far too diverse for a universal solution. “We cannot lay down one-size-fits-all solutions. The country is too large and complex to lay down such directions,” the CJI stated during the hearing.
He emphasized that while the need for virtual hearings has been acknowledged, a judicial directive is not the solution for a nationwide implementation.
The CJI further explained that the issue is already being addressed as part of the e-Courts project, which aims to modernize the Indian judiciary by incorporating technology at various levels.
The project is currently in its third phase and is expected to bring technological advancements to courts across the country.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that virtual hearings would be particularly beneficial in presenting evidence and witnesses.
However, the Court pointed out that not all states or district courts have the same level of infrastructure or technological readiness.
Each High Court is already working on improving facilities based on the unique challenges they face, and the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of trusting the High Courts to manage these funds and make decisions that best suit their respective regions.
High Courts Trusted with Funds
The CJI highlighted the fact that a significant portion of funds allocated for technological improvements has already been spent by the High Courts. “Ninety to ninety-five percent of funds were spent in the first month by High Courts. But the challenges differ from state to state. Meghalaya High Court, for instance, faces vendor-related issues, while the Bombay High Court has different problems,” he said.
The CJI also mentioned that each High Court has a robust ICT (Information and Communication Technology) committee responsible for overseeing the technological development of the judiciary.
He stressed that the judiciary must trust these committees to make decisions based on the specific needs of their jurisdictions.
Evening Courts: A No-Go for Lawyers
The plea also sought the introduction of evening courts to help manage the heavy caseload faced by district courts.
However, CJI Chandrachud pointed out that such a move would likely face opposition from lawyers themselves, as many of them already face exhausting workloads during regular court hours.
“You have prayed for evening courts. The lawyers will oppose this. After a regular day’s work, they will argue in evening courts?” the CJI remarked.
The Court dismissed the plea, making it clear that judicial interventions cannot resolve these issues. The matter, according to the bench, must be handled by individual High Courts, considering their unique challenges and resources.
Advocate Kishan Chand Jain represented the petitioner in the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the complexity of India’s judicial system and the need for a flexible approach tailored to the specific needs of each state.
While the e-Courts project is working towards modernizing the judiciary, the Court made it clear that sweeping judicial orders cannot address the diverse challenges faced by different High Courts.