Delhi High Court: Delhi Governments’s Stand Causing Inconvenience to Lawyers, Litigants and Subordinate Judiciary

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

The procurement of resources such as routers, to conduct virtual hearing was the “need of the hour”. The Delhi High Court remarked that Delhi Government’s stand was causing problems to lawyers, litigants, and subordinate judiciary. (Anand Vaid vs Preety Vaid & Ors)

Brief Facts of the Case 

The Delhi HC passed an order in a petition about video conferencing facilities in Delhi district courts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Delhi Government followed the orders passed by the Court. It had sanctioned over Rs 6 crores for the digitization of District Court records. This was for upgrading the existing internet connection to 1 Gbps in all District Court complexes.

Contentions Before the Court

Additional Standing Counsel for Delhi Government was Advocate Anupam Srivastava. He stated the District Court had made two urgent proposals. They were on the procurement of manual attached storage and routers. Both of them were essential for conducting Virtual Courts. Since their financial implications were above Rs. One crore, they were yet to get clearance.

Finance Department, Govt of Delhi, explained that an expenditure of over Rs One crore requires appropriate sanction from the Council of Ministers. Reetesh Singh was the OSD (Examination). Virender Kumar Bansal was the Chairman of the Centralised Computer Committee, District Court. They stated that the proposals fell under the funds which were already available with the District Courts. The Delhi Government only required a formal proposal.

President, Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur represented Delhi High Court Bar Association. Secretary, Advocate Abhijat represented DHCBA too along with the President. They stated in unison that the legal community and the litigants were facing great difficulty. This was about participating virtually in matters listed before the Judges of the District Courts. DHCBA submitted that the Delhi Government be called upon to take expeditious steps. They were to clear the pending proposals in relation to seamless hearing in virtual courts.

Court’s Observation

A Division Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad had been set up. The hearing was via video conferencing. The Court sought the presence of the Secretary (Finance), Delhi Government, to get clarity on the issue. But, Secretary (Finance) had to present in a meeting with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. He had requested to defer orders till the next date. The Court gets to know that in the absence of adequate bandwidth, the Judges were using the CISCO Webex app. This free app provided a slot of 40 minutes at one time. Thus, halfway through the arguments, parties were automatically delinked. The whole process had to be undertaken again. This had caused considerable disruptions and delays in the hearing.

The Court observed that all the proposals in question relating to the District Courts were pending on the Delhi Government’s end. This was since 2018. The Court remarked that it had to resort to virtual hearings due to COVID-19. It stated that the need of the hour was to provide adequate bandwidth, network-attached storage, and routers. This was to ease conducting virtual courts. It further stated that lawyers, litigants, and the subordinate judiciary felt inconvenient. For this, the Delhi Government should take a proper stand now.

Court’s Decision

The Court directed that any correspondent exchanges between the District Judge (Headquarters) and the Delhi Government should occur through an electronic medium. This was to save time and to ensure expeditious disposal of pending issues. The court awaits the presence of the Secretary (Finance), Delhi Government for further hearing. The court further directed for placing this order before the Law Minister, Delhi Government. The Law Minister had been preparing a note on the pending proposal to put before the Council of Ministers.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -