HC orders functional Video Conferencing in All District Consumer Commissions

Recently, the Delhi High Court stepped in to address a glaring digital gap across District Consumer Commissions in the capital. Acting on a plea by Advocate S.B. Tripathi, the Court examined allegations that authorities had quietly rolled back video conferencing facilities post-pandemic, despite such systems continuing in higher courts, raising serious concerns about fairness, efficiency, and equal access for litigants spread across Delhi.

The controversy began when the petitioner, appearing in person, pointed out that while hybrid hearings had become the norm in courts ranging from district judiciary to the Supreme Court, Delhi’s consumer commissions had reverted to purely physical hearings. Counsel argued that with commissions scattered across the city, advocates were often forced to choose between overlapping hearings, undermining effective representation.

Supporting his claim, the petitioner produced cause lists and RTI responses showing that only four out of ten commissions retained functional video conferencing. Alongside, he flagged deeper administrative concerns, including staff shortages and infrastructure gaps, though those issues were already pending in earlier proceedings before the Court.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia zeroed in on the inconsistency in adopting hybrid systems and found the partial implementation untenable. The Court observed that several commissions were still lagging behind without justification. The Bench ordered that “Respondents shall take steps to ensure that the video conferencing facility for hybrid hearings is made functional… within a period of eight weeks.” It further mandated that all cause lists must include active video links to enable seamless participation.

Consequently, the Court disposed of the PIL with binding directions to standardize hybrid hearing access across all ten District Commissions.

Case Title: S.B. Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) 6355/2025

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Advocate for the Petitioner: S.B. Tripathi (Petitioner-in-person)

Advocate for the Respondent: CGSC Arti Bansal, Advs. Shruti Goel, Sumit K. Batra, Priyanka Jindal 

Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com