The Supreme Court today disposed of a batch of petitions filed during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking access to virtual court proceedings, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts and relevant e-Committees for redressal.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the matter falls under the administrative domain, not the judicial, and directed that the issue be taken up by the appropriate committees, such as the E-Committees, National Court Management Systems (NCMS), and Supreme Court Management Systems (SCMS).

During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by Advocates Siddarth R Gupta and Sriram Parakkat, argued that advocates and litigants whose matters are not listed on a particular day are unable to access courtroom proceedings via the video conferencing links provided in the causelist.

They contended that this lack of access impinges on the fundamental right to open court proceedings, especially when courts are functioning in a hybrid or virtual mode.

Counsel for the petitioners cited the Supreme Court’s own practice, where static links for all functioning benches are made accessible, allowing any individual to watch proceedings—albeit with audio and video controls in place. In contrast, they pointed out that many High Courts restrict access, allowing only parties connected to a case to join the virtual courtroom, despite links being published in the causelist. This restriction, they argued, hinders transparency and public access to justice.

Further concerns were raised regarding inaudibility during proceedings in some High Courts—specifically Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan—where judges’ microphones remain muted for general viewers, defeating the purpose of access.

The petitioners also highlighted non-compliance by several High Courts with the directions issued in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, which laid down the framework for live-streaming of court proceedings in the interest of transparency.

Responding to the submissions, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee noted that the petitions were filed during an extraordinary time—the pandemic—and that the situation has since evolved.

Justice Vikram Nath emphasized that the concerns raised are administrative in nature and should be handled accordingly: “Why don't you make a statement that this matter has to be dealt with at the administrative side and not the judicial side and we will close the matter.”

Echoing this sentiment, Justice Mehta questioned the feasibility of entertaining contempt petitions against High Court Registrars for non-compliance.

Ultimately, the Court passed an order disposing of the petitions while granting the petitioners liberty to present their concerns and supporting material before the respective High Courts and designated committees.

Case Title: All India Association of Jurists v. High Court of Uttarakhand