The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India started with
video conferencing on 27.03.2020. Close on the heels of the Supreme Court, the
Kerala High Court started hearings through video conferencing since 30th
March.
[1]The
difference however was that the hearings of the Supreme Court were highly
guarded and permitted the participation only of the advocate on record of a
particular matter listed before the Hon’ble Court. The cause list clearly
indicated that if the video conferencing link is shared with any person, the
original link will be deactivated[2].
The hearings of the Kerala High Court are being conducted through an application
called Zoom and are open for attendance to the public, much like the hearings
held in open Court. These hearings have continued since 30.03.2020 for urgent
matters and bail applications by two benches of the Kerala High Court. Following
the lead of the Kerala High Court, a public hearing through Zoom was also
conducted by the Bombay High Court on 9.04.2020.
As a perpetual student of law, I have enjoyed
reading orders of Justice Gautam Patel; who, if I may take the liberty of
adorning a title, is the P. G. Wodehouse of the Indian Judiciary.[3]
It was due to this expanse of Justice Patel’s contribution’s to Indian legal
jurisprudence and also to become equipped with the video conferencing processes
being used by the Indian Courts, that I logged on to the Zoom meeting/public
hearing that was conducted by Justice Patel on 09.04.2020. The rest of the
article is a summary of the process followed by the Bombay High Court and the
way ahead for all of us.
Press note prior to hearing
Even prior to attending the hearing, I was happy
to see the press note that was released by the Bombay High Court. The press note
specified the attire in which the advocates were expected to be. It also
notified that the hearing may not be recorded and the etiquettes to be followed
by the other participants. In fact, after the hearing, the court issued further
directions for the hearings upto 14.04.2020.[4]
The notifications issued by other courts conducting hearings through video
conferencing are silent on these aspects. These may have led to screenshots of
the hearings before the courts having been taken which the courts may not intend
to permit.
Video Conferencing on “trial basis”
The hearing commenced with Justice Patel
requesting the lawyers appearing in the 9 matters (listed before him) to stay
back online, after their respective hearings. This he stated was to enable them
to give feedback of the hearing attended by them. He further clarified that
other lawyers may send their feedback through the closest bar association. This
was in furtherance of the statement contained in the press note as also the
Orders passed during the hearing, that the present mode of conducting public
hearing through Video conferencing was purely on “trial basis”.
Social Distancing for the Judges and the Staff
What was heartening was that Justice Patel was in
fact following the social distancing protocol. He was sitting alone in a room
which appeared to be like a study without any staff. His assisting staff
including the steno taking dictation of the orders, had logged onto the meeting
separately from respective locations. He was accessing the scanned copies of the
matters listed before him, himself. There was another staff member on the call
who was facilitating the hearing and was calling out matters. He was also
indicating the names of the lawyers in each of the matters before the Hon’ble
Court.
Experience of attending Hearing conducted through
Zoom
Zoom is a more formal interface as compared to
Vidyo and Whatsapp, several additional conference features were available on
this platform. The chat window was used by the advocates to give appearance.
Further, it was possible for nearly 500 people to attend the hearing. It was
also possible for an advocate to show a particular document, which is on the
said advocate’s PC/laptop by sharing his/her screen with the Learned Bench
(though this feature was not used during the hearings held on 09.04.2020).
There were certain aspects peculiar to the public
hearing through zoom. The Learned Judge maintained complete control on his
court. He muted all the participants and advocates were unmuted once their
matter was called out (feature available to the admin of the call). Even the
lawyer’s whose matters were going on, were put on mute by Justice Patel once he
started dictating the order. As a corollary, in case there was some error in the
dictation, the lawyers could not have informed the Learned Bench (as is possible
in a personal hearing in court). The other peculiar feature was that the Learned
Judge was unmuting the advocates on a case basis. Possibly due to lack of
information, in one case, a counsel who was briefed and was online, was unable
to address the Hon’ble Court, as he remained muted by the Learned Judge. As soon
as he wrote about the same in the chat window; he was unmuted and he could make
his submissions. In the future to avoid such confusion, counsel on record can be
directed to state the names of the counsel appearing in each matter in advance
alongwith the log in id of each such counsel.
Video Conferencing – Way Forward
In certain matters before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it appears that the hearings through video conferencing have happened
with only the Senior Advocate appearing for the relevant party, without the
Advocate on record being a part of the hearing. This, since the link of the
Senior Advocate worked while the advocate on record was unable to log in using
his link and the hearing proceeded without him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court taking
cognisance of such problems being a possibility, has indicated in its order
dated 6.04.2020 in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 5/2020 that any complaint in regard
to the quality or audibility of feed shall be communicated during the proceeding
or immediately after its conclusion.
In fact, in certain matters during the video
calls, proceedings have happened in the absence of the advocate for the
non-applicant. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has recorded in most of its
orders conducted through video conferencing about the methods used by them to
reach the parties and the status of the relevant party having joined the call or
not. However, considering that the matters that are being heard at present are
those of extreme urgency, it may be a good time for other courts to follow the
model of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and request all advocates to register their
email ids with the concerned court. This will go a long way in the courts being
able to ascertain whether nominated counsel representing the parties have been
duly served.
Public hearing
A public hearing means that not only advocates of
the concerned parties but also the clients and any other person interested in
the issue being heard by the court can attend the hearing. This is also possible
during hearings held in court. Hence, this should be made possible even for
hearings being conducted through video conferencing. If this is not made
possible for at least the relevant party to attend the hearing through video
conferencing, clients may seek to go to the lawyer’s office/ residence to attend
the hearing alongside the advocate. This would defeat the purpose of social
distancing.
Furthermore, since public hearing will permit the
participation of advocates other that the lawyers who’s matters are listed, the
Courts could also consider enabling an advocate who has a connected matter to
(i) to inform the Court that he has an identical matter in advance and (ii) to
attend the hearing. Such mentioning is possible during regular hearings in Court
and would be made possible if all courts adopt public hearings through video
conferencing.
The hearing by the High Court of Bombay was conducted almost
as smoothly as a regular court hearing and the same gives hope that even during
Covid-19, courts may start to function regularly even for day to day business. I
am certainly looking forward and hoping for that day to arrive soon.
[1] Read more
at
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-hc-bail-applications-video-conferencing-154875
[2] Read my
article on experience of video conferencing before the SC at
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/justice-in-the-time-of-covid-19-first-hand-experience-of-videoconferencing-at-supreme-court-154437
Leave a Comment