New Delhi, March 12 The Supreme Court on Friday sought minutes of the meeting between its Registry and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which led to the Standard Operation Procedure (SoP) for hybrid hearing.
Senior advocate and SCBA president Vikas Singh claimed that no consultation was done with the Bar members before a decision was taken for hybrid-style hearings, which is scheduled to begin from March 15.
A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and comprising Justice Hemant Gupta assured the lawyers' body that nothing will be done without any discussion with the Bar. Singh argued that Bar is an equal stakeholder in the justice delivery system.
The bench observed, "if the Bar has not been consulted then the SOP will go."
Justice Kaul told Singh that Bar will be considered and the court will examine the minutes of the meeting. "As an institution, it can take a call, but your opinion certainly has weightage," the bench told Singh.
The top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on Tuesday next week.
The SCBA had filed a plea in the top court to issue direction to quash the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) issued on March 5 for hybrid hearing, as they were issued without due consultation with the lawyers' body.
In the writ petition, the Bar association said it is an equal stakeholder in the dispensation of the justice delivery system and the suggestions given by it ought to have been taken into consideration. Citing SCBA's president Vikas Singh letter, the plea said he had given suggestions on March 2 for resumption of physical hearing, which has not been considered by the apex court.
"That even if before resumption of full physical hearing before this court, a hybrid hearing was to be introduced as an interim measure, in that case the hybrid hearing should have been for all days i.e. from Monday to Friday. In the SOP dated 05.03.2021, there is no provision for hybrid hearing for the matters listed on Monday and Friday, i.e. Miscellaneous days when primarily fresh matters are listed," said the plea.
The plea contended that there is a general feeling in the Bar that for the last few years the top court registry has been issuing circulars without taking it into confidence even though such orders issued directly affect the lawyers practicing before this court. Aggrieved with no oral mentioning of matter, the lawyers' body said in March 5 SoP there was no provision for oral mentioning for urgent matter, which was a regular practice in the normal course of functioning before the pandemic.
ss/dpb
( With inputs from IANS )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor