Back
Hears PIL Seeking Reliable Mobile Network, Wi-Fi in Courtrooms
A filed before the has brought to the forefront a critical yet often overlooked component of modern judicial infrastructure: reliable mobile network and internet connectivity inside every courtroom. The petition, taken up on Tuesday by a comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, seeks directions to ensure high-speed, uninterrupted mobile and Wi-Fi access across all court complexes in the national capital.
, appearing in person, argued that in an era where , electronic records, , and have become the norm, dependable connectivity is no longer a matter of convenience but an essential pillar of the . The Bench, after hearing preliminary submissions, directed the petitioner to implead the itself as a . The court granted one week to file an and listed the matter for further hearing next Wednesday.
Background: The Digital Transformation of Indian Courts
The Indian judiciary has undergone a rapid digital transformation over the past decade, accelerated significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic. The and various High Courts adopted virtual hearings, and the e-Courts project introduced electronic filing, case status portals, and digital records. In Delhi, where the volume of litigation is among the highest in the country, the reliance on digital tools has become pervasive. Lawyers routinely access case files on tablets, join video conferences from courtrooms, and communicate with clients via messaging apps during proceedings.
However, the physical infrastructure has not kept pace. Many courtrooms, especially older ones, suffer from weak mobile signals or complete dead zones. Wi-Fi networks, where available, are often slow, insecure, or limited in coverage. The PIL contends that this technological gap directly impedes the smooth functioning of the justice system.
Key Developments: Court's Direction and Petitioner's Allegations
During the hearing, the noted the importance of the issue and instructed Advocate Baghel to add the as a respondent to ensure comprehensive representation of all stakeholders. The court did not issue any but indicated its willingness to examine the matter seriously.
The petition cites an earlier order dated , which had directed the concerned authorities to treat a similar representation on seamless internet and Wi-Fi facilities as a formal request and take a reasoned decision. Baghel claimed that despite this order, connectivity problems persist. He also sought information under the regarding measures taken but alleged that no response was received, underscoring a lack of accountability.
Legal Analysis: Connectivity as a Component of
The PIL raises constitutional questions rooted in and , arguing that poor digital infrastructure impairs the . The petition states that “inadequate connectivity inside courtrooms can directly interfere with the .” It further asserts that “lawyers should not be compelled to leave a courtroom or interrupt proceedings merely to search for a network signal to access a virtual hearing, electronic record, court portal or other digital court service.”
This argument resonates with the ’s recognition of the as a , which includes the right to effective legal representation. If a lawyer cannot reliably access digital case files or join a hybrid hearing while physically present in a courtroom, the quality of representation suffers. Similarly, litigants and their families may be unable to communicate during urgent situations.
The petition also highlights the impact on advocate-client communication. It notes that poor connectivity affects the ability to receive instructions, documents, or clarifications immediately before or during hearings, thereby prejudicing the client’s case.
Impact on Legal Practice and Judicial Efficiency
If the grants the relief sought, it could set a precedent for court complexes across India. The PIL requests a courtroom-wise technical audit to identify dead zones and areas with weak or intermittent connectivity. It also calls for the installation of dedicated Wi-Fi access points, signal enhancement systems, repeaters, and other infrastructure. Furthermore, it demands a mechanism for immediate reporting and rectification of network failures during court working hours.
Such measures would significantly enhance the efficiency of , which are now a permanent feature of many courts. Lawyers who travel between multiple courtrooms in a single day would no longer face the frustration of losing connectivity at critical moments. Litigants, especially those appearing via video link from remote locations, would benefit from more stable connections on the court’s end.
From an administrative perspective, a reliable network would also enable better case management, real-time access to court orders, and smoother . The petition emphasizes that the absence of minimum connectivity standards is a systemic failure that must be addressed through judicial intervention.
Conclusion: A Step Toward Modernizing Judicial Infrastructure
The ’s willingness to entertain this PIL signals a recognition that technological infrastructure is as vital as physical infrastructure in the delivery of justice. The next hearing, scheduled for the following Wednesday, will likely see the as a party filing its response. The petitioner has also indicated that he may seek to conduct an immediate audit of connectivity.
For legal professionals, this case underscores the evolving nature of the courtroom environment. As the judiciary continues to embrace digital tools, the obligation to provide a conducive technological environment falls squarely on the state. The outcome of this PIL could redefine what constitutes essential court infrastructure in the 21st century, ensuring that no lawyer or litigant is left disconnected from the justice system.
