As India’s SC resumes physical hearing after 2 years, let’s look at key rulings that marked lockdown

After a gap of two years, India’s Supreme Court began full-fledged physical hearing on Monday, after it had to switch to virtual hearing due to mounting Covid cases in the country.

On March 30, Chief Justice NV Ramana had said that the court will resume the physical hearings from April 4 onwards. “Monday onwards, we are opening fully, physically,” he said.

The Chief Justice added that they would still conduct virtual hearings on Monday and Friday provided the advocates ask for it.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Earlier, the top court used to hear matters physically on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and conducted hearings through video conference on Monday and Friday.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic hindered its functioning at the beginning, the Supreme Court’s openness to adopting technology without any prior experience made sure that the gates of justice remain open to the people even in the most distraught times.

During the 100 days of lockdown between March and August 2020, 1,022 benches were set up. More than 15,000 cases were taken up, of which 4,300 were resolved, reported Hindustan Times newspaper.

During that time, around 51,000 lawyers argued their cases through videoconferencing till August 2020.

At present, more than 150 cases are heard every day by the SC through virtual hearings, the newspaper noted.

During its virtual functioning, the top court delivered some of the most important judgments and settled several prominent questions of law.

Internet part of the fundamental right

In the first month of 2020, a three-judge bench ruled against the internet gag in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370, which had granted special powers to the erstwhile state.

The judgment did not order for restoration of the services in the backdrop of the security concerns, but laid down an important principle that right to access internet is a fundamental right by extension. And hence, it can be demanded as such before a constitutional court.

The court further said that every gag order must give reasons and has to be reviewed regularly by the authorities concerned.

Political parties to publish criminal history of their candidates

In a major fillip for electoral reforms, the Supreme Court had directed political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates contesting for state and national elections. It also asked the parties to detail the reasons that prompted them to field suspected criminals.

The court held that the information should be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as on the parties’ social media handles. It should mandatorily be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier, the court said.

On cryptocurrency

The Supreme Court set aside the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular issued in 2018 that put a complete ban on banking services for the virtual currency.

The court found the 2018 circular to be unreasonable and disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved by RBI, paving the way for a regulatory regime of cryptocurrency in India instead of a complete ban.

The 2018 circular stated that the entities regulated by RBI are prohibited from providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those related to the transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies.

(With inputs from agencies)