The Supreme Court of India clarified that advocates unable to attend proceedings through video conferencing on Mondays and Fridays may appear physically in court, after the Supreme Court Bar Association raised practical difficulties regarding the video-only hearing arrangement before the apex court.
The Supreme Court has clarified that advocates who are unable to participate in court proceedings through video conferencing on Mondays and Fridays may appear physically before the relevant courts. The clarification was issued following a representation submitted to the apex court by the Supreme Court Bar Association, highlighting practical difficulties faced by members of the Bar in complying with the video-only arrangement on those days.
In recent measures aimed at reducing operational costs and encouraging more efficient resource use, the Supreme Court had announced that hearings would be conducted exclusively through video conferencing on Mondays and Fridays. The decision reflected the judiciary’s attempt to align its functioning with broader directives encouraging reduction of avoidable expenditure during times of heightened regional uncertainty.
ALSO READ: PM Modi’s Fuel Saving Drive: Supreme Court Goes Fully Virtual on Mondays & Fridays
The shift to video conferencing was adopted in connection with concerns about costs and logistics, and it also followed wider public policy discussion over expenses particularly in the context of the ongoing West Asia crisis. The move was also influenced by a call from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to cut down avoidable spending, with the government emphasizing that unnecessary costs should be minimized while the situation in the region remained volatile.
After the apex court’s instructions came into effect, the Supreme Court Bar Association reportedly drew attention to the challenges being faced by advocates who could not reliably attend proceedings through online modes on the specified days.
A circular issued by the Supreme Court acknowledged that the earlier directions were originally framed in consideration of national interest, but it noted that new inputs had been received from the Bar regarding feasibility and access.
The circular stated:
“It is hereby clarified that the said directions were issued keeping in view the nation’s interest. However, representation has been received from the Supreme Court Bar Association about the difficulty being faced by advocates in this regard.”
While the Supreme Court continued to stress that advocates should generally make use of video conferencing facilities, it made room for exceptions where physical appearance is unavoidable.
Accordingly, the circular explained that the competent authority would continue appealing to members of the Bar to participate online, while also clarifying that in genuine cases where advocates are unable to join through video conferencing, they may present themselves in court.
The circular further added:
“Accordingly, the Competent Authority, while appealing to the members of the Bar that they should continue to appear online, has clarified that the advocates who, for some unavoidable reasons, are not able to participate via video conferencing mode may appear physically before the Hon’ble Courts whenever it is functioning physically,”
Prior to this clarification, the Supreme Court had taken a formal decision on May 15 to hear cases exclusively through video conference on Mondays and Fridays. The court also indicated that judges had collectively decided on steps to ensure efficient fuel usage an approach consistent with the broader theme of reducing avoidable expenditure.
As reported earlier, judges “unanimously resolved” to encourage car-pooling arrangements among themselves to optimize fuel consumption. That measure was part of a wider attempt to reduce logistical costs without impacting judicial proceedings.
The development is significant because it clarifies the court’s position on maintaining the video conferencing framework while ensuring that advocates who face genuine constraints are not denied access to proceedings.
By allowing physical appearance in “unavoidable” cases, the Supreme Court has effectively adopted a more flexible approach one that recognizes both the policy goal of cutting costs and the practical realities of legal advocacy.
The Supreme Court’s shift toward cost-conscious measures also aligns with the Prime Minister’s broader message on curbing avoidable spending during the challenging geopolitical situation in West Asia. While the judiciary continues to explore efficiency measures, this clarification suggests that the Supreme Court is simultaneously ensuring that the legal process remains accessible and workable for all stakeholders.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE