A batch of Writ Appeal/Petitions, nine Senior Advocates including Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General of India, more than 25 instructing counsel – all logged in from different parts of the country and one from abroad, 5000 pages of documentation and marathon hearing for 25 working days including two Court holidays, totally 61 hours of hearing. This is the biggest experimentation by the Karnataka High (Virtual) Court in the matter of Securities Exchange Board of India vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt Ltd & others decided on 24 October 2020.
The Corona related lockdown and closure of courts opened a new avenue of virtual courts through video conference. The judiciary especially High Courts across the country are fully equipped with the new technology. The court staff are fully trained. The complements given by the learned advocates in Securities Exchange Board of India vs Franklin Templeton Trustees Services Pvt Ltd & others shows the hard work and efficiency exhibited by the court staff in handling the entire matter brilliantly.
However, as I have seen, when the writ matters are listed in ‘B’ group or when other matters are indicated by the court to be heard, learned advocates are seeking adjournment stating they would like to argue physically. This, I feel is a pure state of mind rather than the practical difficulty being pleaded. Minor and avoidable technical glitches do happen. As noted by the Karnataka High Court only once an issue of connectivity of internet was faced for a brief period of ten minutes just before the submissions of learned Solicitor General of India were heard.
”All the parties will not agree about the correctness of the conclusions drawn on merits. But we are sure that all the parties will agree that notwithstanding the voluminous record, long length of arguments and involvement of complicated legal and factual issues, hearings can be effectively conducted by use of video conferencing facility.“ – Chief Justice speaking for the bench.
I may mention here, the advocates fraternity sat Dharna and made strongest demands for filling up of vacancies in the Karnataka High Court. Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Mr. B.M. Arun, Advocate and myself had to file a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court seeking a direction to Union of India in this regard. Finally, the strength of Judges in Karnataka High Court has reached its satisfactory mark. The judiciary is fully equipped. Advocates fraternity, especially the younger members of the bar are doing their best to reduce pendency of cases.
It is high time we all gear up with the sense of inevitable reality that virtual courts are here to stay and any matter of any magnitude can be dealt with, with the active participation of Bar and Bench. The recent disposal of several Criminal Appeals involving serious crimes like rape and murder through video conference has withered away the slightest apprehension about disposal of matters involving life and liberty of the citizens through video conferencing.
“Traditional court room drama is undoubtedly delightful. But the conviction to clear pendency through other legally permissible ways is noble.”
S. Basavaraj, Advocate & Member, Karnataka State Bar Council
Daksha Legal 