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

Must Read

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court...

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

Calcutta High Court Rejects the Petition Challenging the Bid’s Rejection Filed on Seeking Condonation of Delay Due to Pandemic Interventions in Absence of Satisfactory...

Case: Shiba Prosad Banerjee vs The State of West Bengal and others The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on 22nd January...

Calcutta High Court Reiterated the Scope of the Grounds for Exercising Its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction.

Case: Shreya Beria vs Vedant Bhagat The Calcutta HC on 20th January 2021, dismissed the criminal revision filed by the Petitioners (wife) challenging the...

Calcutta High Court: Deceased’s Wife Has the Sole Right Over His Preserved Sperm; Father Doesn’t Have Any Fundamental Right Over Son’s Progeny Without the...

Case: Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India & Ors. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition by the Petitioner (father) on 19th...

Gujarat High Court Allows a Family Suit to Be Transferred From Family Court, Surat to the Family Court, Bhavnagar

The Court directed that in light of the circumstances of the present case, the application of the applicant- wife to transfer the case from...

Telangana HC Grants Two Days to Convey the Decision of Appropriate Notification and Counselling to the Higher Secondary Department

Excerpt In Telangana Republican Party Trp vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed the Higher Education Department for passing...

Telangana HC: Applications Have to Be Made Through Online Web Portal “Dharani” for Mutation of Names

Excerpt In P. Manohar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 18 January 2021, Telangana High Court directed that one has to...

Indonesian Spa Therapist Approaches Supreme Court Regarding Illegal Detention Followed by Raid at the Spa

An Indonesian spa therapist has moved to Supreme Court, whilst challenging an HC order which provided relief to the police inspector who was involved in the illegal detention of the spa therapist in a woman’s home which was followed by a police raid at the spa.

Questions of Forgery, Tampering Not Capable of Summary Adjudication Under Article 226 in Delhi High Court’s Jee Marks Case

Questions of fraud, forgery, and tampering require elaborate evidence as per the ruling of the Delhi High Court making it incapable of summary adjudication...

Supreme Court: Urgent and Immediate Reforms Needed in the Legal Education Due To Mushrooming of Law Schools

The Supreme Court, on Saturday, said that there is an urgent need for reforming the legal education in the country as its quality is being affected due to the ‘mushrooming’ of Law Colleges.

Delhi High Court Ruled Disclosure of Interest in Information Sought Under Rti Act Necessary to Establish Bonafides of Applicant

The Delhi HC opined that disclosure of the interest of information is necessary for the information sought under the RTI Act for establishing bonafide...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -