Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 1049

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sarvesh Mathur – Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. K.M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Anand, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Tushar Bathija, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Praveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Parth Jain, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshit Goel, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepayan Mandal, AOR Mr. Naman Varma, Adv. Mr. Mridul Bansal, Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H.prasad, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, AOR Mr. P.D. Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tushar D. Bhelkar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Subhash Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Anil Walde, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Mr. Shivansh Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv. Ms. Aparna Arun, Adv. Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv. Mr. Akhil Hasija, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Sovon Siddhanta, Adv. Mr. S. Silambarasan, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, Adv. Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Ms. Anagha N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hari Vishnu Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Mr. Virender Ganda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipul Ganda, Adv. Mr. Vishal Ganda, Adv. Mr. S.K. Giri, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Mathur, Adv. Ms. Nirti Dua, Adv. Mr. Anandeb Mitra, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

The use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an option but a necessity, and access to courts must not be restricted based on technology usage.

Headnote:
Technology Adoption - Access to Courts - [Order 1, Order 14, Order 16] - The court discussed the considerable variation in the level of adoption of technology among High Courts, the absence of uniform SOPs, inadequate internet connectivity, and the need for infrastructure for conducting hybrid hearings. The court issued directions to ensure access to video conferencing facilities, availability of internet facilities, preparation of a uniform SOP, and training facilities for the use of technology.
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the variation in technology adoption among High Courts, the absence of uniform SOPs, and inadequate internet connectivity.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a considerable variation in the level of adoption of technology among High Courts, and that the absence of uniform SOPs and inadequate internet connectivity were hindering access to courts.
Issues: Variation in technology adoption, absence of uniform SOPs, inadequate internet connectivity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court issued directions to ensure access to video conferencing facilities, availability of internet facilities, preparation of a uniform SOP, and training facilities for the use of technology.
Final Decision: The court issued directions to all concerned stakeholders to implement the directions in letter and in spirit, and listed the proceedings for further review.

ORDER :

1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 15 September 2023, notice was issued to the Registrars General of all the High Courts, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ¹ [“NCLAT”] the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission² [“NCDRC”] and the National Green Tribunal.³ [“NGT”] They were directed to file an affidavit detailing (i) how many video conferencing hearings have taken place in the last three months and (ii) whether any courts are declining to permit video conferencing hearings. Further, the Solicitor General was requested to assist the court with data on hybrid hearings in the tribunals under various ministries of the Union Government on the next date of hearing.

2. Pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2023, the following High Courts have filed their affidavits:

(i) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

(ii) High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

(iii) High Court at Calcutta.

(iv) High Court of Chhattisgarh.

(v) Gauhati High Court.

(vi) High Court of Gujarat.

(vii) High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

(viii) High Court of Jharkhand.

(ix) High Court of Karnataka.

(x) High Court of Kerala.

(xi) High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

(xii) High Court of Judicature at Madras.

(xiii) High Court of Meghalaya.

(xiv) High Court of Orissa.

(xv) High Court of Judicature at Patna.

(xvi) High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

(xvii) High Court of Rajasthan.

(xviii) High Court of Sikkim.

(xix) High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

(xx) High Court for the State of Telangana.

(xxi) High Court of Uttarakhand.

(xxii) High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

3. Mr. Gautam Narayan, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi states that the response would be filed within a week. Permission is granted to do so.

4. The High Court of Manipur and the High Court of Tripura have not filed any response until date. They are granted a further extension of time until 13 October 2023 to file their responses failing which the Registrars General of the High Courts concerned and the Registrars (IT) shall personally remain present on the next date of hearing.

5. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the NGT states that hybrid hearings are being held by the NGT both at the Principal Bench at Delhi and at the Regional Benches. Likewise, it has been stated by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the tribunal is holding hybrid hearings.

6. As regards the NCLAT, it has been stated that infrastructural requirements have to be upgraded and funds have been sought from the Union Government. The Additional Solicitor General states that requisite funds shall be made available to the NCLAT. We direct that a joint meeting be held between the Secretaries of the Ministries of Finance and Corporate Affairs with the President of the NCLAT within a period of one week and that all pending issues, including the availability of funds are sorted out so as to enable the NCLAT to conduct hybrid hearings. Simultaneously, a meeting shall also be held with the Chairperson of the National Company Law Tribunal⁴ [“NCLT”] within a period of two weeks. The NCLAT and NCLT shall ensure that hybrid hearings are made available at the option of the appearing lawyers, or the litigants, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.

7. Mr. K.M. Nataraj states that a tabulated statement indicating the position of other Tribunals falling under various Ministries of the Union Government shall also be placed on the record by the next date of hearing.

8. During the course of the hearing, we have heard the following counsel on behalf of the High Courts:

(i) Mr. K. Parameshar for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

(ii) Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the State of Maharashtra with Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh for the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

(iii) Mr. Kunal Chatterji for the High Court at Calcutta.

(iv) Mr. Apoorv Kurup for the High Court of Chhat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 1049

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.Sarvesh Mathur – PetitionerVersusThe Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana – RespondentWrit Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2023Decided On : 06-10-2023

The use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an option but a necessity, and access to courts must not be restricted based on technology usage.

Related Judgments

Sarvesh Mathur VS Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana - 2023 Supreme(SC) 1049

Sarvesh Mathur VS Registrar General High Court Of Punjab And Haryana - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1498

Anil Kumar Hajelay VS Honble High Court Of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1739

Anil Kumar Hajelay vs Honble High Court of Delhi

SHOBHA VERMA AND ANR v. ASHOK KAPOOR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48593

Manashwy Jha VS Union Of India - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1745

Deepak Khosla VS National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - 2021 Supreme(Del) 55

Sanjay Singh VS Sukhpal Kaur - 2022 Supreme(Del) 904

Udit Goyal VS High Court of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh - 2023 Supreme(SC) 959

Manashwy Jha vs Union of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Sarvesh Mathur – Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar General High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023