On Monday, yet another plea filed in Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's recent decision to resume Physical Hearings on alternate day basis without providing for the option to chose Virtual Mode if desired.
This time, a group of Five Woman Lawyers namely Amrita Sharma, Saumya Tandon, Padmapriya, Ashmita Narula and Shivani Luthra have filed the plea assailing the orders issued by the Registrar General, Delhi High Court on 14-01-2021.
The petitioners have sought the quashing of the above mentioned order and issuance of fresh order allowing Advocates to chose Virtual Hearing as an option in the case.
It was pleaded that there are women and men Lawyers who have young children pursuing home schooling/virtual schooling due the ongoing pandemic concerns. As until now the Courts are being held virtually, it was easy on part of the Advocates to discharge both their professional and parental duties but with the new order, the option has been swept off. The plea thus read:
"If the Impugned office order are given effect to without the option of virtual hearing, then such lawyers shall be constrained to choose between their professional duties and taking care of their young children, or worse be constrained to expose themselves, their children as well as vulnerable members of their families to Covid-19 as the Impugned office order leave them with no alternative."
The petition especially mentioned the plight it will bring on the female Lawyers who now will be parted between the two options. The plea in this regard further read:
"The Impugned office order are going to affect several women lawyers even more adversely who have managed to carry out their professional duties till now under the system of virtual hearing but will now be forced to choose between their family responsibilities including young children and their profession. They will either be forced to return the briefs which is against ethics of the profession or forced to go to courts endangering the health of the young children/old parents."
It was also claimed that Advocates cannot effectively represent their clients in Virtual Hearings while being physically present in Court simultaneously. It was thus contended:
"Failing to provide any option to the litigant/lawyers to request for virtual hearing in matters listed before physical court or providing an option to join physical court by video conferencing, the Impugned office order impinges upon the right to access to justice of the litigants and the right to life and livelihood of the advocates."
The petition also mentioned how the order shall put many Lawyers who age between 50 & above and those who suffer from co-morbidities and other health-related issues to risk if physical as Covid still sustains and how the order is in complete contradiction to all the existing medical and health guidelines.
"Violates the fundamental rights of the Litigants, Advocates, Court Clerks other support Staffs", the plea states.
The Delhi High Court via its Notice issued dated 14-01-2021 had directed to its Subordinate Courts to prepare Roster allowing Physical Hearings on alternate days.
Notably, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar has also wrote to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court urging him to reconsider the decision to resume Physical Courts.
Picture Source :
