Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Manashwy Jha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed by a lawyer for vaccination mechanism. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for hybrid hearings amidst covid-19. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's instructions for dhcba consultation on hearings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. next hearing scheduled and order on hybrid hearings. (Para 13 , 17) |
| 5. no adverse orders for non-appearance in physical courts. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The present petition has been filed by an advocate, who is a practicing lawyer before the High Court. The reliefs sought in the petition are two-fold. Firstly, there should be a mechanism for vaccination of lawyers, who are enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi (hereinafter, "BCD") and who are members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (hereinafter, "DHCBA"). Secondly, that until the vaccination process of all lawyers is completed, the impugned notifications dated 20th February, 2021 relating to the physical functioning of the Delhi High Court and Subordinate Courts ought to be suspended.
3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. A.S. Chandiok, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
