The court recognized the need for hybrid hearing arrangements and a vaccination mechanism for lawyers, emphasizing stakeholder consultation amid COVID-19 concerns.

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. Advocates, Mr. Atul Nagarajan, Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr. Nikhil Rohtagi, Mr. Sachit Jolly, Ms. Amrita Sharma, Mr. Amit Kr. Hajely, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates are some of the Sr. Counsels and Counsels who have made their submissions supporting the Petition. Ms. Kajal Chandra, ld. counsel has appeared for the Delhi High Court Bar Association and Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, ld. Counsel has appeared for the Delhi High Court.

4. Insofar as the first aspect of vaccination of lawyers is concerned, it is noted that the said issue is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court in Arvind Singh v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 84/2021. A copy of the said writ petition may be placed on record by Mr. Anil Soni, ld. CGSC. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ld. ASG has appeared in the matter and has sought instructions in respect of the vaccination. Both, Mr. Sharma and Mr. Soni have submitted before this Court that insofar as persons with co-morbidities above the age of 45 years and 60 years are concerned, the vaccination process is likely to commence shortly.

5. Since the decision has already been taken by the government in respect of opening of vaccination for general public falling in two categories i.e., above 60 years of age and above 45 years of age with co-morbidities, ld. counsels may seek instructions from the Ministry of Health as to whether the Bar Association can be given no objection so that they can enter into an arrangement with the manufacturers in order to make it possible for the lawyers falling in the above said two categories to be vaccinated, upon payment of the prescribed charges, in facilities that may be arranged by the Bar Associations itself. Let instructions be obtained before the next date and be communicated to the Court.

6. Insofar as the second aspect of physical hearings from 15th March, 2021 is concerned, a perusal of the notification dated 20th February, 2021 makes it clear that the Court would be opening physically, however, in exceptional cases the parties or their counsels may be permitted to join through video conferencing, subject to availability of requisite infrastructure.

7. Various counsels have appeared today and have made their submissions in respect of why there should be open hybrid hearing and not just in exceptional circumstances. The submissions made by all the counsels today are summarized below:

i. That there is resurgence of COVID-19 in at least 8 to 10 States in the country, since the time the said decision was taken and hence there is a need to reconsider the same.

ii. That there are public reports to the effect that there is a new strain of COVID-19 in India and there is a risk which involves greater exposure.

iii. That there are several lawyers, who, due to their age and comorbiditi