The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that restrictions imposed on individuals preventing their attendance or participation in court hearings due to the Covid-19 pandemic are legal. The ruling was in line with social distancing norms and the best public health practices aimed at curtailing the spread of Covid-19.
Duty versus Discretion
The Supreme Court, invoking its extraordinary Constitutional powers under Article 142, decided to deviate from the norm of open court hearings. It emphasized that the application of this significant power was an obligation rather than a matter of discretion.
Convention versus Public Health
Although the open court system promotes transparency in the administration of justice, reducing conventional operations was necessary to prevent large gatherings of people. The court emphasized that public health takes precedence over conventions.
Cooperation and Participation
The court stated that every individual and institution must cooperate with the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. It urged courts at all levels to respect social distancing and ensure that court premises don’t contribute to the spread of the virus.
Covid-19 and Rule of Law
Access to justice is essential to maintain the rule of law in the democracy envisaged by the Indian Constitution. Without access to justice, people cannot express their voices, exercise their rights, challenge discrimination, or hold decision-makers accountable. The challenges posed by the Covid-19 outbreak must be addressed while preserving the constitutional commitment to ensuring justice delivery and access to those seeking it.
ICT and Delivery of Justice Guidelines
The Supreme Court issued guidelines to streamline the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in effective justice delivery. High Courts are to decide the modalities for using videoconferencing technologies in their respective States. District courts in each State are to adopt the videoconferencing mode prescribed by the respective High Courts.
Practical Implementations
Helplines will be established to handle and resolve technical complaints. The courts should provide video conferencing facilities for litigants who don’t have access or appoint an amicus curiae (friend of the court). The court also mentioned that evidence should not be recorded via videoconferencing unless both parties consent. If evidence must be recorded in a courtroom, the presiding officer must ensure that social distancing is maintained.
Article 142: A Discretionary Power to Supreme Court
Article 142 grants discretionary power to the Supreme Court, allowing it to pass decrees or orders necessary for complete justice in any ongoing case. This has been applied constructively over the years to deliver justice to deprived sections of society and protect the environment.
Supreme Court’s Role Overriding Parliament
A momentous instance of invoking Article 142 was the Union Carbide case, relating to victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy. The Supreme Court declared that to ensure complete justice, it could override the laws made by Parliament. However, later in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, it was stated that Article 142 could not replace existing law but only supplement it.
Controversies Regarding Judicial Overreach
In recent years, there have been several judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has ventured into areas that have long been off-limits to the judiciary due to the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’, integral to the basic structure of the Constitution. The notable example is the ban on the sale of alcohol along national and state highways implemented by invoking Article 142.
