SARVESH MATHUR versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1117, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Issues
CASE DETAILS
SARVESH MATHUR
v.
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of 2023)
OCTOBER 06, 2023
[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J.B. PARDIWALA AND 
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Denial of access to video conferencing 
facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode.
Directions by Supreme Court – Conduction of hearings through 
video conferencing/hybrid mode – Considerable variation between High 
Courts in the level of adoption of technology – Position of the tribunals 
under various ministries of the Union Government:
Held: No High Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities 
or hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or litigant 
desirous of availing of such a facility – All State Governments shall provide 
necessary funds to the High Courts to put into place the facilities requisite for 
that purpose within the time frame as indicated – High Courts shall ensure 
that adequate internet facilities, including Wi-Fi facilities, with suﬃ  cient 
bandwidth are made available free of charge to all advocates and litigants 
appearing before the High Courts within the precincts of the High Court 
complex – The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid 
hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of each court and 
there shall be no requirement of making prior applications – No High Court 
shall impose an age requirement or any other arbitrary criteria for
availing 
of virtual/hybrid hearings – All the High Courts shall put into place an 
SOP within a period of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video 
conference hearings, directions issued for its eﬀ ectuation – High Courts shall 
place on the record the details as directed – Union Ministry of Electronics 
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1117 : 2023 INSC 891
1117
1118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
& Information Technology to coordinate with the Department of Justice 
to ensure that adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided 
to all the courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh 
and Jammu and Kashmir to facilitate access to online hearings – High 
Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are made available to 
the members of the Bar and Bench – Union of India shall ensure that on or 
before 15.11.2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure 
for hybrid hearings – All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement of 
hybrid hearings no later than the said date – Directions governing the High 
Courts shall also apply to the Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries 
of the Union Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT, 
NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs – Additional Solicitor General 
shall immediately contact the Chairperson of the APTEL and take necessary 
steps on behalf of the Union of India to ensure that video conferencing/
hybrid facilities are made available at APTEL within a period of one month 
from the date of this order. [Paras 14, 15]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) 
No. 351 of 2023.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Appearances:
Petitioner-in-person
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Nidhesh Gupta, Guru Krishna Kumar, Virender 
Ganda, Sr. Advs., Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Chitransh 
Sharma, Shashwat Anand, Amrish Kumar,   Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza 
Bar, Tushar Bathija,  Siddhant Saroha,  Sidhant Awasthy,  Praveer Singh, 
Parth Jain, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Ms. 
Kshitij Singh,  Varinder Kumar Sharma,  Nikhil Goel,  P. I. Jose,  James 
P. Thomas,  Ravi Sagar,  Gaurav Agrawal,  Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita 
Singh, Harshit Goel, Siddhant Singh, Sahil Tagotra, Shibashish Misra, 
Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Deepayan Mandal, Naman 
Varma, Mridul Bansal,  K. Parameshwar, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, 
Chinmay Kalgaonkar,  T. G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Rituraj
1119
SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL 
HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA
Biswas, P. D. Gupta, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Mukul Kumar, Sandeep Sudhakar 
Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Tushar D. Bhelkar, Akshay Subhash Jagtap, 
Swapnil Anil Walde, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. 
Shashi Pathak, Apoorv Kurup, Shivansh Dwivedi, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, 
Ms. Aparna Arun, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Akhil Hasija, Himanshu Shekhar, 
Parth Shekhar, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Shubham Singh, Ms. Enakshi 
Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovon Siddhanta, S. Silambarasan, Ms. Uttara 
Babbar, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa,  Venkita Subramoniam T.R,  Likhi Chand 
Bonsle, Ms. Komal Mundhra, Ms. Anagha N. Sharma, Hari Vishnu Tiwari, 
Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Ms. Shreya Bansal, 
Aniket Singh,   Vipul Ganda, Vishal Ganda, S.K. Giri,  Satyajit A. Desai, 
Siddharth Gautam, Ms. Akanksha Mathur, Ms. Nirti Dua,  Anandeb Mitra, 
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 15 September 2023, notice was issued 
to the Registrars General of all the High Courts, the National Company 
Law Appellate Tribunal,1 the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission,2 and the National Green Tribunal.3 They were directed to ﬁ le 
an aﬃ  davit detailing (i) how many video conferencing hearings have taken 
place in the last three months; and (ii) whether any courts are declining 
to permit video conferencing hearings. Further,
the Solicitor General was 
requested to assist the court with data on hybrid hearings in the tribunals 
under various ministries of the Union Government on the next date of 
hearing. 
2. Pursuant to the order dated 15 September 2023, the following High 
Courts have ﬁ led their aﬃ  davits: 
(i) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;
(ii) High Court of Judicature at Bombay;
1 
  “NCLAT”
2 
   “NCDRC”
3 
  “NGT”
1120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
(iii) High Court at Calcutta;
(iv) High Court of Chhattisgarh;
(v) Gauhati High Court;
(vi) High Court of Gujarat;
(vii) High Court of Himachal Pradesh;
(viii) High Court of Jharkhand;
(ix) High Court of Karnataka;
(x) High Court of Kerala;
(xi) High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
(xii) High Court of Judicature at Madras;
(xiii) High Court of Meghalaya;
(xiv) High Court of Orissa;
(xv) High Court of Judicature at Patna;
(xvi) High Court of Punjab and Haryana;
(xvii) High Court of Rajasthan;
(xviii) High Court of Sikkim; 
(xix) High Court of Andhra Pradesh;
(xx) High Court for the State of Telangana;
(xxi) High Court of Uttarakhand; and
(xxii) High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
3. Mr Gautam Narayan, counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court 
of Delhi states that the response would be ﬁ led within a week.  Permission 
is granted to do so.
4. The High Court of Manipur and the High Court of Tripura have not 
ﬁ led any response until date. They are granted a further extension of time 
until 13 October 2023 to ﬁ le their responses failing which the Registrars 
General of the High Courts concerned and the Registrars (IT) shall personally 
remain present on the next date of hearing.
1121
SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL 
HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA
5. Mr Himanshu Shekhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the NGT 
states that hybrid hearings are being held by the NGT both at the Principal 
Bench at Delhi and at the Regional Benches.  Likewise, it has been stated 
by Mr K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of 
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that the tribunal 
is holding hybrid hearings.
6. As regards the NCLAT, it has been stated that infrastructural 
requirements have to be upgraded and funds have been sought from the 
Union Government.  The Additional Solicitor General states that requisite 
funds shall be made available to the NCLAT.  We direct that a joint meeting 
be held between the Secretaries of the Ministries of Finance and Corporate 
Aﬀ airs with the President of the NCLAT within a period of one week and 
that all pending issues, including the availability of funds are sorted out 
so as to enable the NCLAT to conduct hybrid hearings.  Simultaneously, a 
meeting shall also be held with the Chairperson of the National Company 
Law Tribunal4 within a period of two weeks.  The NCLAT and NCLT shall 
ensure that hybrid hearings are made available at the option of the appearing 
lawyers, or the litigants, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks 
from the date of this order. 
7. Mr K M Nataraj states that a tabulated statement indicating the 
position of other Tribunals falling under
various Ministries of the Union 
Government shall also be placed on the record by the next date of hearing. 
8. During the course of the hearing, we have heard the following 
counsel on behalf of the High Courts:
(i) 
Mr K Parameshar for the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad;
(ii) 
Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General has appeared on behalf of 
the State of Maharashtra with Mr Sandeep Deshmukh for the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay;
(iii) 
Mr Kunal Chatterji for the High Court at Calcutta;
(iv) 
Mr Apoorv Kurup for the High Court of Chhattisgarh;
4 
  “NCLT”
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
(v) 
Mr P I Jose for the Gauhati High Court;
(vi) 
Mr Nikhil Goel for the High Court of Gujarat;
(vii) Mr Tapesh Kumar Singh for the High Court of Jharkhand;
(viii) Ms Anagha N Sharma for the High Court of Karnataka;
(ix) 
Mr T G Narayanan Nair for the High Court of Kerala;
(x) 
Mr Arjun Garg for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh;
(xi) 
Mr S. Gurukrishna Kumar, senior counsel for the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras;
(xii) Mr Sanjai Kumar Pathak, counsel for the High Court of 
Meghalaya;
(xiii) Mr Shibashish Misra for the High Court of Orissa;
(xiv) Mr Gaurav Agrawal for the High Court of Judicature at 
Patna;
(xv) Mr Nidhesh Gupta, senior counsel for the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana;
(xvi) Dr Charu Mathur for the High Court of Rajasthan;
(xvii) Ms Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta for the High Court 
of Sikkim; and
(xviii) 
Ms Uttara Babbar for the High Court for the States of 
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
9. From the discussions which have taken place before the Court, 
it is evident that there is a considerable variation between High Courts 
in the level of adoption of technology. Some High Courts have made 
considerable progress and hearings are being provided through the 
hybrid mode or video conferencing.  Other High Courts have stated 
that facilities are available. However, when the statistics in regard to 
the actual number of hearings through video conferencing/hybrid mode 
have been disclosed, it appears that the
performances are abysmal. For 
instance, in one High Court, as few as 3 hearings have been conducted 
in the virtual mode in the last three months.
1123
10. In most High Courts, the problem is compounded by the 
absence of a uniform SOP which brings clarity to the manner in which 
access to the electronic mode of hearing can be obtained. An application 
for electronic access has to be submitted well in advance, in certain 
cases, three days before the date of commencement of the hearing. The 
arbitrariness of the existing SOPs is also borne out by rules such as 
hearing being allowed in hybrid mode for advocates/parties-in-person 
who are 65 years of age or above. The age restriction would unfairly 
disadvantage younger lawyers and restrict access to technology only in 
the hands of the seniors at the Bar.  Such criteria do not bear any nexus 
to the aim of using technology to increase access to courtrooms. 
11. Further, most High Courts do not provide Wi-Fi or internet 
connectivity to the members of the Bar and litigants within the precincts 
of the High Court. In the absence of adequate connectivity, it is not 
possible for the members of the Bar and litigants to access the internet 
within the precincts of the High Courts. Links for video conferencing 
hearings are not provided in the cause-list.  Many High Courts have not 
yet adopted online ﬁ lings which would complement the hearings through 
video conferencing or in the hybrid mode. We are also concerned about 
the absence of adequate internet activity in the North-East States.
12. During the course of the hearing, it has also emerged that 
whereas several High
Courts do have facilities for video conferencing, 
very few High Courts are operating through the hybrid mode of hearing. 
The infrastructure which is required for conducting hybrid hearings 
may be of a diﬀ erent order as compared to the infrastructure for video 
conferencing.  
13. Bearing in mind the above situation as it has emerged across 
the country in the High Courts, we nominate Mr Gaurav Agrawal and 
Mr K Parameshwar, counsel, as amici curiae. The amici curiae are 
requested to collate all the information which has been provided in the 
aﬃ  davits which have been ﬁ led before this Court in a tabulated chart 
so that further eﬀ ective orders can be passed by this Court. The amici 
curiae may also distribute the work in connection with the High Courts 
between them and individually contact the Registrars General/Registrars 
(IT) of the High Courts so that necessary information can be placed 
SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL 
HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
before this Court in that regard. The amici curiae shall also place 
before this Court the steps which have been taken by all the High 
Courts to facilitate e-filing.
14. In this backdrop, we issue the following directions:
(i) 
After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no High 
Court shall deny access to video conferencing facilities or 
hearing through the hybrid mode to any member of the Bar or 
litigant desirous of availing of such a facility;
(ii) 
All State Governments shall provide necessary funds to the High 
Courts to put into place the facilities requisite for that purpose 
within the time frame indicated above;
(iii) 
The High Courts shall ensure that adequate internet facilities, 
including Wi-Fi facilities, with suﬃ  cient bandwidth are made 
available free of charge to all advocates and litigants appearing 
before the High Courts within the precincts of the High Court 
complex; 
(iv) 
The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid 
hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of 
each court and there shall be no requirement of making prior 
applications. No High Court shall impose an age requirement 
or any other arbitrary criteria for availing of virtual/hybrid 
hearings; 
(v) 
All the High Courts shall put into place an SOP within a period 
of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video conference 
hearings. In order to eﬀ ectuate this, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, 
Hon’ble
Judge of the High Court of Delhi is requested to prepare 
a model SOP, in conjunction with Mr Gaurav Agrawal and Mr 
K Parameshwar, based on the SOP which has been prepared by 
the e-Committee. Once the SOP is prepared, it shall be placed 
on the record of these proceedings and be circulated in advance 
to all the High Courts so that a uniform SOP is adopted across 
all the High Courts for facilitating video conference/hybrid 
hearings;
1125
(vi) 
All the High Courts shall, on or before the next date of listing, 
place on the record the following details:
(a) The number of video conferencing licences which have been 
obtained by the High Court and the nature of the hybrid 
infrastructure;
(b) A court-wise tabulation of the number of video conference/
hybrid hearings which have taken place since 1 April 2023; 
and
(c) The steps which have been taken to ensure that Wi-Fi/
internet facilities are made available within every High 
Court to members of the Bar and litigants appearing in 
person in compliance with the above directions.
(vii) The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology is 
directed to coordinate with the Department of Justice to ensure 
that adequate bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided 
to all the courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand, Himachal 
Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir so as to facilitate access to 
online hearings; 
(viii) All High Courts shall ensure that adequate training facilities are 
made available to the members of the Bar and Bench so as to 
enable all practising advocates and Judges of each High Court 
to be conversant with the use of technology.  Such training 
facilities shall be set up by all the High Courts under intimation 
to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this 
order; and
(ix) 
The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15 November 
2023, all tribunals are provided with requisite infrastructure for 
hybrid
hearings. All Tribunals shall ensure the commencement 
of hybrid hearings no later than 15 November 2023. The 
directions governing the High Courts shall also apply to the 
Tribunals functioning under all the Ministries of the Union 
Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, AFT, 
NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs.
SARVESH MATHUR v. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL 
HIGH COURT OFPUNJAB AND HARYANA
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
15. Notice shall also be issued to the Registrar In-charge of the 
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity5. Mr K M Nataraj, Additional 
Solicitor General shall immediately contact the Chairperson 
of the APTEL and take necessary steps on behalf of the Union 
of India to ensure that video conferencing/hybrid facilities are 
made available at APTEL within a period of one month from 
the date of this order.
16. Above all, it must be noted that technology plays an essential 
role in securing access to courtrooms and as a result, access to justice for 
citizens across the country. Lawyers and litigants using electronic gadgets 
to access ﬁ les and legal materials cannot be asked to turn the clock back 
and only refer to paper books. In the march of technology, the Courts cannot 
remain tech averse. Placing fetters on hybrid hearings, like mandating an age 
criteria, requiring prior application, and frequent denial of access to virtual 
participants has the direct eﬀ ect of discouraging lawyers and litigants to 
use technology. Not only does this aﬀ ect the eﬃ  ciency and access to courts, 
but it also sends out the misguided message that access to courts can be 
restricted at whim to those who seek justice.
17. The use of technology by the Bar and the Bench is no longer an 
option but a necessity. Members of the Bench, the Bar and the litigants must 
aid each other to create a technologically adept and friendly environment. 
The above
directions must be implemented by all concerned stakeholders 
in letter and in spirit.
18. List the proceedings on 6 November 2023.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Directions issued.
Divya Pandey
5 
  “APTEL”