Anil Kumar Hajelay & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The Petitioners in WP(C)2018/2021 are practising lawyers who are all Senior citizens. The prayer in the petition is that the Subordinate Courts and Quasi-Judicial bodies in Delhi ought to be directed to hold hybrid hearings, once physical courts are opened, as there are several counsels who suffer from co-morbidities and are unable to appear before the Court due to the threat of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Petitioners also submit that adverse orders are being passed by the subordinate courts if the lawyers do not appear physically and therefore enormous prejudice is being caused. On 16th February 2021, a report was called for from the worthy Registrar General as to availability of infrastructure in the subordinate courts including availability of internet connectivity, both in the court premises and the residences of the judicial officers. A report has been submitted by the fully possible in the district courts at this stage as there are several infrastructural issues.

3. In W.P.(C) 2673/2021, the Petition has been filed by a practising lawyer before this Court and the reliefs sought in the petition are two-fold:

(i) There should be a mechanism for vaccination of lawyers, who are enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi and who are members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association;

(ii) That until the vaccination process of all lawyers is completed, the impugned notification dated 20th February, 2021 relating to the physical functioning of the Delhi High Court and Subordinate Courts ought to be suspended.

4. On 26th February 2021, this Court after hearing several counsels appearing for the Petitioner was of the opinion that the various submissions made praying for hybrid hearings ought to be considered by the DHCBA and its stand ought to be placed on record.

5. Today, at the outset Mr. Viraj R. Datar, ld. counsel appearing for the Delhi High Court, has pointed out order dated 3rd March, 2021, passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in suo moto proceedings titled Courts on its own Motion vs. Union of India, wherein a detailed order has been passed in respect of the vaccination of lawyers and judges etc. Pursuant to the said order, the said matter is stated to have been listed before the learned Division Bench-II today, and has been adjourned to 10th March, 2021 and certain directions have been issued.

6. Mr. Datar also submits that the administrative order which has been challenged before the court in the present petition is based on the minutes of a Full Court Resolution dated 19th February, 2021. Accordingly, he submits that this matter ought to be heard by a Division Bench, as per the Roster.

7. In terms of the relief prayed for in these two writ petitions, various submissions have been made today.

8. Mr. Nagarajan, ld. counsel appearing in WP(C) 2018/2021, submits that hybrid hearings ought to be the way forward. He relies upon the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee Report in support of his submissions.

9. Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel, appearing for the Coordination Committee of all District Bar Associations, submits that in view of the fact that there are several technical glitches taking place during online hearings, they cannot be equated with physical courts. Moreover, he submits that every Court has a territory where lawyers can practice, and unless and until there is complete reciprocity of online hearings across the country, the Delhi High Court holding online hearings would be detrimental to local lawyers. He finally submits that herd immunity has been acquired in Delhi and since social gatherings have already been permitted as per the orders of the Disaster Management Authority, there is no reason whatsoever, why resumption of full physical courts should not take place.

10. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, ld. Senior Counsel and Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi, submits that the decision to fully resume physical courts was pursuant to various representations made by the Bar Council of Delhi, and the ld. Chief Justice had given a full hearing to the members of the Bar Council of Delhi.

11. On behalf of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, the President and Secretary Mr. Mohit Mathur, ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Abhijat, ld. counsel submit that the issue was revisited pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the last date, and the minutes of the said meetings, dated 1st March, 2021 and 3rd March, 2021, where the issue was reconsidered, have been duly placed on record.

12. They firstly submitted that it is only a minority of lawyers who support non-resumption of physical courts. In any event, they submit that the Delhi High Court Bar Association does not oppose hybrid hearings, as captured in paragraph 16 of the minutes.

13. On behalf of the Petitioners, Ms. Geeta Luthra, ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, ld. Senior Counsel, Mr. Manish Vasishth, ld. counsel and Mr. Kirtiman Singh, ld. counsel, submit that the Delhi High Court Bar Association did not afford any hearing to members of the Bar. They further submit that social distancing would not be able to be maintained in the High Court, considering the density of the visitors in Court. It is also submitted that the submission of Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Senior Counsel, as to herd immunity, is not correct, and until and unless proper medical advice is taken, complete opening of physical courts should not take place and option of hybrid hearings ought to be available.