The Supreme Court urged a woman litigant to argue her case in person instead of via video conferencing, citing suspicious conduct. The bench offered her legal assistance and full travel expenses through NALSA for a fair hearing.
New Delhi: Today, on July 23, the Supreme Court recently urged a woman litigant, who was representing herself in a case, to appear physically before the Court instead of continuing through video conferencing (VC).
The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing a miscellaneous application in which the petitioner had alleged contempt of the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
She also sought the recall of a previous order dated November 20, 2023, and asked for her appeal to be restored, claiming that she was not given a fair hearing.
During the proceedings, the bench repeatedly asked the petitioner why she could not come to the Court physically, especially since she had been offered legal aid and all travel expenses would be covered.
In response, the petitioner mentioned that she had family responsibilities, her job, and the long distance to Delhi to manage. She also said that earlier issues related to audio quality in virtual hearings had been resolved.
However, Justice Dipankar Datta expressed concern over her behaviour during the virtual hearing. He observed,
“You kept looking at someone every time we asked you something.”
When the Court asked who she was referring to, the petitioner first said she was looking at co-petitioners. But when questioned further, she admitted that she was the only petitioner in the case. This contradiction led the bench to issue a caution.
Also Read: [Breaking] Major Technical Disruption in Supreme Court Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam
Justice Datta remarked,
“You want to take advantage of the virtual interface and keep somebody behind you, who is not visible to us. We’d like to hear you in person,”
To ensure fairness, the bench offered her the opportunity to name any Supreme Court advocate of her choice who could assist her for free.
It also assured her that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) would pay for her travel and that the Court would give her a full day to present her arguments.
Still, the petitioner insisted on continuing via video conferencing and asked,
“What is the problem with my arguing? I want to understand that. I want to understand what’s the problem in my VC appearance.”
Justice Datta firmly replied,
“We are at a loss to understand what prevents you from coming here!” He added, “If you want your submissions to be heard, it has to be in-person.”
The Court also referred to two earlier judgments from two-judge benches, which said that people who were not a party to the Lalita Kumari case could not file contempt petitions.
Also Read: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Dates Announced: To Be Held From June 16-21
Despite this, the bench was open to hearing arguments on whether those rulings should be reconsidered. Justice Surya Kant noted,
“Maybe we can permit you to argue that those two judgments require reconsideration.”
Before ending the hearing, the Court asked the petitioner to decide clearly whether she would argue the case in person and contest the legal correctness of the earlier decisions.
The petitioner responded,
“I have made up my mind,”
but did not explain her final decision.
CASE TITLE:
ANINDITA vs SUDHANSHU SARANGI AND ORS. MA 1045/2024
Click Here to Read Our Reports on AoR
