<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association on a plea to declare a virtual court hearing, started due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as a fundamental right for the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and B N Nagarathna sought a response from the bar bodies in four weeks while refusing a stay the Uttarakhand High Court's order which on August 16 declared that the court will resume physical hearing and no request for a virtual hearing will be entertained.</p>.<p dir="auto">Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner, 'All India Jurists Association', a body of 5,000 lawyers, and others contended that this matter pertained to restriction on right of the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">"We will issue notice to BCI and SCBA. Let's see what is their response. We've seen the order but we're not going to stay it," the bench told the counsel.</p>.<p dir="auto">Luthra, for his part, said different sets of directions have been issued by the courts. The hybrid option should not be done away with. The litigants will save a cost on the lawyers to travel and also reduce the carbon footprints. It will also be a relief for the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">"We are hoping that there should be normalcy...What was the status of litigants for 70 years," the bench asked the counsel.</p>.<div dir="auto"><p dir="auto">He said in 2013, electronic reforms were introduced.</p><p dir="auto">To this, the bench pointed out the BCI, the Chairman had in a function on Saturday said that lawyers have been suffering due to virtual hearings.</p><p dir="auto">The counsel then said it was because cases were not being taken up.</p><p dir="auto">"How will young lawyers learn? In court, there is an eye to eye contact and the matter in which you argue is also effective. There is a difference between online courts and offline courts. Soon Artificial Intelligence will take over and some countries have even resorted to it for decision making. But we've said clearly that it can't be used in Indian courts," the bench said.</p><p dir="auto">The counsel, however, said all that he was stressing was that hybrid hearing should continue as access to justice is a fundamental right. </p><p dir="auto">The plea claimed the High Court’s order was a death knell for the idea of virtual courts. The order goes against accessible, and affordable justice being propagated by the e-committee of the top court. Apart from Uttarakhand, the plea also cited instances of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala High Courts compelling lawyers to appear physically.</p></div>
<p dir="auto">The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association on a plea to declare a virtual court hearing, started due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as a fundamental right for the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and B N Nagarathna sought a response from the bar bodies in four weeks while refusing a stay the Uttarakhand High Court's order which on August 16 declared that the court will resume physical hearing and no request for a virtual hearing will be entertained.</p>.<p dir="auto">Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner, 'All India Jurists Association', a body of 5,000 lawyers, and others contended that this matter pertained to restriction on right of the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">"We will issue notice to BCI and SCBA. Let's see what is their response. We've seen the order but we're not going to stay it," the bench told the counsel.</p>.<p dir="auto">Luthra, for his part, said different sets of directions have been issued by the courts. The hybrid option should not be done away with. The litigants will save a cost on the lawyers to travel and also reduce the carbon footprints. It will also be a relief for the litigants.</p>.<p dir="auto">"We are hoping that there should be normalcy...What was the status of litigants for 70 years," the bench asked the counsel.</p>.<div dir="auto"><p dir="auto">He said in 2013, electronic reforms were introduced.</p><p dir="auto">To this, the bench pointed out the BCI, the Chairman had in a function on Saturday said that lawyers have been suffering due to virtual hearings.</p><p dir="auto">The counsel then said it was because cases were not being taken up.</p><p dir="auto">"How will young lawyers learn? In court, there is an eye to eye contact and the matter in which you argue is also effective. There is a difference between online courts and offline courts. Soon Artificial Intelligence will take over and some countries have even resorted to it for decision making. But we've said clearly that it can't be used in Indian courts," the bench said.</p><p dir="auto">The counsel, however, said all that he was stressing was that hybrid hearing should continue as access to justice is a fundamental right. </p><p dir="auto">The plea claimed the High Court’s order was a death knell for the idea of virtual courts. The order goes against accessible, and affordable justice being propagated by the e-committee of the top court. Apart from Uttarakhand, the plea also cited instances of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala High Courts compelling lawyers to appear physically.</p></div>
