Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna urged judiciary to encourage lawyers and litigants appearing in courts via video conference.

The judge asked judiciary to treat parties appearing online at par with those appearing physically and highlighted the stance of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrahud who has been batting for hybrid hearings.

“Virtual courts must be like open courts and judges should not snub those who appear virtually. Our Chief Justice is encouraging virtual courts but there are judges who snub those appearing online. I request them not to do so and encourage virtual appearances“, she said.

Justice Nagarathna was speaking at the silver jubilee celebrations of the Ramaiah College of Law in Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Interestingly, former Supreme Court judge Justice Ajay Rastogi, while sitting in a vacation bench with Justice Nagarathna last year, had refused to allow lawyers to appear virtually.

“We come to court everyday … Lawyers who are physically present will get indulgence,“ Justice Rastogi had remarked.

Justice Nagarathna in her speech on Saturday also stressed that the first level of equal access to justice is to give legal aid to the disadvantaged sections of society.

“Giving legal aid to the poor is not the same as poor legal aid. I must emphasise, it has to be [of] quality. Some of the reasons people do not avail legal aid is that they are not aware of legal and constitutional rights or they do not have confidence in the quality of legal aid offered. This is dangerous. I appeal to all lawyers to offer pro-bono services. Even if 200 Seniors practicing at the Karnataka High Court do even two pro-bono cases a year, it would help tremendously.”

Supreme Court judges Justices AS Bopanna and Aravind Kumar, Karnataka High Court’s Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice G Narendra, and Andhra Pradesh Governor (and former Supreme Court judge) S Abdul Nazir also spoke on the occasion.

Justice Nagarathna in her keynote address dwelt on the performance of empanelled advocates (of legal aid clinics).

“Their must be assessed, whether they are charging fees or ignoring pro bono briefs. Response of litigants with regard to services rendered must be there for constant assessment, which will ensure that good ones are retained and others removed,” she said.

She also flagged the trend of appointing underperforming district judges as secretaries in district legal services authorities, and called for greater gender diversity on the bench.

“There must be greater gender diversity in the bench. If you have only men decide cases of women, cases which they might not be able to fully share then. Only with more women judges would access to justice become more meaningful,” she opined.

Chief Justice Varale spoke about the importance of access to justice to ensure rule of law, so that citizens can enforce their rights and also raise challenge to any discrimination.

Justice Kumar pushed for mediation and arbitration to reduce the burden on the judiciary and called for better training and sentitisation of judicial officers.

Justice Bopanna spoke about social justice as a basic feature of the Constitution.

“Essential feature of the Constitution is to make it accessible to the disabled. The voices of a louder few should not distract us from fact that Constitution provides for us all. Guaranteeing access to justice is is essential to rule of law. Poor and disadvantaged have historically been deprived of access to justice, they are unaware or rights and benefits … Virtual courts make justice system more accessible for the common man,” he added.

Governor Nazir stated that access to justice is sine qua non for the welfare of people in general and the marginalised sections of society in particular.

The high cost of litigation is a key factor which contributes to the pendency of cases as well as increasing number of undertrials in the country, he pointed out.

“The Indian judiciary has always taken a key role in promotion of legal aid. It has compelled as well guided the legislature to bring justice to the doors of weakest sections of society. Public interest litigation is a shining example of how the judiciary has played the role of a vanguard,” the retired Supreme Court judge said in conclusion.