The Supreme Court expressed concern over a party-in-person's insistence on appearing virtually despite being offered full assistance, including legal representation and travel expenses, for physical appearance.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application when the petitioner, appearing without legal representation, requested permission to argue her case via video conferencing. When questioned by the Court about her reluctance to appear physically despite being extended logistical and legal aid, the petitioner cited personal responsibilities, distance from Delhi, and occupational constraints as reasons for her inability to attend in person.
While she claimed to have resolved prior audio-related issues that hampered earlier hearings, the Bench appeared unconvinced. Justice Datta observed that the petitioner seemed to repeatedly glance at someone off-camera during the virtual proceedings. When asked about this, she initially claimed to be looking at co-petitioners, but later stated that she was the sole petitioner, prompting the Court to warn her against making inconsistent statements.
“You want to take advantage of the virtual platform and keep someone behind you who is not visible to us,” Justice Datta remarked, emphasizing the need for transparency in court proceedings.
The Court further encouraged the petitioner to nominate any Supreme Court advocate of her choice, who would be appointed at no cost to assist her. The Bench also assured that all travel-related expenses would be covered by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and that she would be provided a full day to argue her case. However, the petitioner persisted in requesting virtual appearance, questioning the necessity of physical presence.
"We are unable to understand what prevents you from appearing before the Court physically," the Bench noted, reiterating that in-person hearings were vital for effective adjudication in the given context.
The Bench also took note of two previous judgments which held that contempt petitions cannot be filed by individuals not party to the Lalita Kumari case. The petitioner was asked to address the maintainability of her contempt claim in light of these precedents. The Court even hinted at the possibility of allowing her to argue for reconsideration of those rulings.
Before concluding, the Bench asked the petitioner to clearly state whether she intended to contest the legal position laid down in the cited decisions. “I have made up my mind,” she responded, signaling her intention to proceed.
The petitioner has alleged contempt of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and sought recall of an order dated 20 November 2023, claiming that she was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in the matter.
Picture Source :
