Karnataka High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging SOP for Partial Functioning of Courts

Must Read

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,...

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...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

An advocate filed a writ petition challenging the SOP for the functioning of Courts. The Court, said that it is “Impossible to Find a Perfect Solution Liked by All Stakeholders”.

Petitioner’s Submission

The petitioner submitted that the Bar member’s suggestions were ignored. He submitted that by SOP, the HC had exposed the court staff and Judicial officers to the pandemic. In addition to that, the submission alleged exclusion of specific categories of matters from the SOP. And, that the cross-examination by video conferencing is not active. It was said that e-mails are sufficient for most stages of Trial Courts. He also submitted that advocates should forward video clips of submission.

He further submitted that the Trial Court functions based on a written argument. Thus, oral arguments, in most cases, are irrelevant. He criticized some of the clauses of SOP, submitting that undue advantage takes place.

Petitioner’s Prayers

He prayed for setting aside the provisions of the impugned SOP. Furthermore, he claimed that it discriminates between cases based on the different stages of the case. He also prayed for setting aside the provision in paragraph 6A of SOP. That provision permits Cross-Examination by Video Conferencing. Furthermore, he prayed for setting aside the practice of “first round calling”.

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the petition. It stated that,

“Though this is a fit case where costs quantified at an amount not less than Rs.1,00,000 should be imposed on the petitioner, we are not doing so. The reason is that if mercy and leniency are to be shown, they are to be shown by the Judges, who are occupying Constitutional posts. Therefore, we exercise our jurisdiction by showing mercy, and we are not imposing any costs on the petitioner.”

The bench during the hearing said “It is effortless to sit in AC offices and argue all this. There is always going to be opposition to the procedure adopted by certain members of the Bar. It is easy to throw stones at us. However, let us tell you that courts are for litigants and not only for the advocates.”

The bench in its order said “As we are dealing with an extraordinary situation, it is impossible to find a perfect solution which will be liked by all stakeholders. Before framing procedures at every stage, there was consultation with the Bar association and Bar Council, Advocate General and Additional Solicitor General. By publishing a notice on the website, suggestions were called, and those suggestions were referred to a court-appointed committee, and that is how SOP was published and revised from time to time after consulting stakeholders.

The procedure laid down is not rigid. In fact, SOP changed from time to time. We may note here that no one can claim what is devised by SOP is perfect. The reason is that the situation is abnormal.”

Further Explanation

The bench said “Efforts were made to reconcile the provisions of law for the efficient functioning of the Courts during the period of limited functioning. A suo-moto PIL has been initiated to ensure that courts function in a more effective and litigant friendly manner in the days of the pandemic.”

It added that “Several members of the Bar will have their opinions. But, the institution of Court is not run on the basis of individual opinions. The ultimate object of SOP is to ensure that the limited functioning of the Court continues in the best possible manner”.

Final Decision

The bench concluded by saying that “Suffice it to say that this Public Interest Litigation is not worthy of entertaining at all. This is not a case that could have been brought to the Court by way of a writ petition in the nature of PIL. This is a fit case where exemplary costs should be imposed on the petitioner, who himself is a member of the Bar. Urgent matters are waiting in the queue. The Court cannot be forced to devote a long time for a PIL challenging certain provisions of the SOPs.”


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for 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

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...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -